A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Not Bob]

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
conf. to Hank -- "Rope a Dope" is a fun debating style from time to time, but take care not to make it your main schtick. People will either start to get irritated with you, or start presuming that this is really your best shot. See, e.g., club.

I never get irritated with Hank

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.

FTR, I said

I am curious to if the left of center bloggers will be once a DEM is in the WH.

Please explain why, for example, the NBC refused to air its exclusive interview with Juanita until after the election.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.

Anyone else find this funny?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.

A lot of Clinton's problems with the media stemmed from the same impulse that just got CBS in trouble -- they were gunning to take down the President. Jeff Gerth's reporting on Whitewater has more holes than Mary Mapes' work on Bush's Guard service. Though strangely enough, he still has a job.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A lot of Clinton's problems with the media stemmed from the same impulse that just got CBS in trouble -- they were gunning to take down the President. Jeff Gerth's reporting on Whitewater has more holes than Mary Mapes' work on Bush's Guard service. Though strangely enough, he still has a job.

Ty, you're letting them change the subject. Clinton's been out of office for half a decade. No one cares anymore.

Come on, Bushies, we're looking for your justification for paying off the media.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please explain why, for example, the NBC refused to air its exclusive interview with Juanita until after the election.

Beats me. (I'm not really sure what you're talking about, other than that it has something to do with Juanita Brodderick, who said that she was raped by Bill Clinton -- although she had denied it before -- sometime in the 1980s. Which election was this? 2000?)

They did do an interview with her, though, didn't they? And her story was out there, right? Doesn't sound like much of a coverup to me.

Heck, if they really wanted to cover it up, they would have bought the exclusive rights to the story, and then sat on it. You know, like GM and the oil companies are doing with the 500 mpg car engine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Come on, Bushies, we're looking for your justification for paying off the media.

Club agrees that it's wrong, but says Dems did it too. We're still waiting for evidence or a clue on that one.

Hank isn't even pretending to give a justification, and is changing the subject to the extent possible.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club agrees that it's wrong, but says Dems did it too. We're still waiting for evidence or a clue on that one.

Hank isn't even pretending to give a justification, and is changing the subject to the extent possible.

I have a job and over 5000 posts. If I actually read the underlying news articles i woul have to drop one of those 2. Which ones you doing?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Beats me. (I'm not really sure what you're talking about, other than that it has something to do with Juanita Brodderick, who said that she was raped by Bill Clinton -- although she had denied it before -- sometime in the 1980s. Which election was this? 2000?)

Exactly my point. This was 1996.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly my point. This was 1996.

Too bad they didn't air it. Bob Dole wouldn't have had to endorse Viagra, and we'd all be getting ready for the inaguration of Jack Kemp right now.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club agrees that it's wrong, but says Dems did it too. We're still waiting for evidence or a clue on that one.

I think by now we can say with confidence that he has neither.

All he has is the old reliable fallback of "Look over there! Clinton might have been a rapist! Look!!"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
How quickly did the press drop coverage of the $100,000 disguised bribe to Bill Clinton? Hillary (from reading the WSJ) learned enough about commodities to parlay a $1,000 investment into $100,000. Despite that track record she remained at her law firm instead of going to work for George Soros.

They covered that story for about two years into the Admin.

Next "cover-up", please.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Club agrees that it's wrong, but says Dems did it too. We're still waiting for evidence or a clue on that one.

Here's a start - it's not where I recall seing it, and yes I know the source is shady:

• Alexandria, Va.: Mr. Williams, as a paid PR professional, would you say that these types of payments from a federal government agency to PR firms are rare? Did these types of executive branch-media relationships occur during the clinton years, do you know?
  
  Armstrong Williams: Yes, they did. And I'm only finding out by reading today's Wall Street Journal that this is the way they do business in Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan7.html

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Contrast the made up crap from NYT on Bush

Like what?