posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:32 PM
I have a couple of questions, orangetom, with all due respect. Where in my post do I say that left-wing bias is okay and right-wing is not? I do not
personally subscribe to the idea that the media has a left-wing bias, to be honest. I think most bias in the media is pro-coprorate more than anything
else, since the media has increasingly become a mouthpiece for the multinational corporations who own it. Of necessity, any real "left" slant in the
media is pretty well gone, if it ever was there, since corporate itnerests are certainly more right-leaning, at least in economic terms. I think Fox
News is blatantly right-wing, absolutely---the fact they calim to be "fair and balanced" is a joke even to most conservatives. Anyway, if you can
find where I said that left-wing bias is okay and right-wing is not, I will happily stand corrected, but I don't see a statement like that anywhere.
I did say the media has shifted to the right as a whole, and I definitely beleive that to be true.
Another question I have is when you say that the media "could not" report on what was going on in the Clinton years because he was "their man." If
you could pelas illustrate your point with an example I would appreciate it, since my memory is different. I seem to remember that in the Clinton
eyars, whenever he actually tried to do something different---national health care, allowing gays in the military, moving toward detente in the middle
east---the common tactic was to salm him in the media until, wimp that he was, he would just back off. If you have an example of something they
"could not " report about, I would love to hear it, since from where I am sitting, it seems like Bush is getting a much bigger free ride from the
media than Clinton ever did . Again, that's just my perspective, but I've heard it voiced by otehrs, as well, and I'm happy to stand corrected,
again, if you can give me some concrete examples of where the media backed off on Clinton and gave him a pass.
As a quick example, let's compare two infamous statements: when Clinton wagged his finger and said he didn't have sexual relations with "that
woman," it was played endlessly---still is, you see it on TV every couple of weeks in some context or other. Now, when Bush was asked about his
relationship with Ken Lay, he said "Ken who?" and then claimed, even more preposterously, that he had never heard of the guy! This was a case of
Bush lying to the press and the country every bit as much as Clinton, since he and Lay had been friends for years and Lay was his NUMBER ONE CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTOR of all time, for his races as Governor AND President. They golfed together and exchanged Christmas cards ("Kenny Boy," remember?), so
how come Bush'S "Ken who?" comment is never ---or very seldom---replayed? Why hasn't he been forced to admit he was lying, as Clinton had to do?
In my opinion, that is a point worth considering by anyone who claims the media to have a "liberal" bias.
My intention here is not to be argumentative or start trouble or dimish what you said, I would just like some examples so that you can back up what
you say if it is, indeed, accurate.
[edit on 7-9-2005 by RyanC]