Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Reporting on the sins of someone like Clinton is unavoidable. The bias is a matter of timing and emphasis. Contrast the made up crap from NYT on Bush- or just look at how NYT didn't point out the CBS memos were faked until far too late.
|
Hank, this discussion started when club said that he doubted that left/center blogs would be as critical of a Democratic WH as the right/center blogs were of the whole Armstrong Williams thing. When someone pointed out that the liberal media beat on Bill Clinton pretty badly, Club said "pa-lease" and CTD said that Bill was a bad man for having sex in the Oval Office.
You agree that the press beat Clinton like a red-headed step-child, but say that they didn't make anything up? How about Whitewater? Can we at least agree that even Ken Starr found no problems with Bill in that one?
Clinton was a victim of the liberal media's bias, too -- but it was a class-based one. Because Bill went back to Dogpatch after Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford, he was treated as a rube, and all of the northeastern bias against the south was let loose upon him whe he had the nerve to get elected without kissing the rings of the Sultzbergers and the Grahams. Granted, he brought a lot of it on himself. But the Times writers and editors, having read all about the corrupt south in books like "All the Kings Men" and "The Earl of Lousiana," were just certain that he was on the take.
Threaded Mode