quote:Shouldn't we all be saying "Monica ... who?"
Thanks, you walked into that one.
Most definitely we should.
Propaganda 101: "Straw man" + "Desensitization through repetition" = diversion.
You cover the weakest aspects of the story. The media portrayed the story as having to do with Clinton's sex life and the adultery issue. They pounded the sex scandal until the audience was sick of hearing it. Once the facts came out that Clinton and his aides suborned perjury and obstructed justice, the audience was desensitized to the subject.
Of course, all of the above is irrelevant, as it was a news story while Clinton was IN OFFICE, and now he is OUT, (this is where you seem to keep having brain-freeze... we're talking about POST-term coverage here) and you don't hear much about it anymore.
Grocka: well, sort of. It's a fan-produced page, so you expect intensive coverage of a single subject, but look at the amount of press coverage it was able to collect with a minimum of effort, all telling us about the perils of Clinton's ex-cat.
[ April 03, 2002, 17:45: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And yet, Rob, I went to quite a bit of trouble not that long ago to post legal arguements why Clinton didn't commit perjury. Not that you or any other self-decieving Republican care for that sort of stuff (Omega's response was something along the lines of "who cares for legal speak" or somesuch).
Regardless, your assertion that the media is liberal is BS. Is FOX News liberal? Is AM radio liberal? Is The Washington Times liberal? If the NYT and TWP are liberal, why do they keep showering so much praise on the Second Grader in Chief?
Oh, yeah. Because the "liberal media" (or, as ya'll used to call it, the "liberal Jew media") is a figment of a defensive, aggressive Conservative imagination.
And the proof that you're right is, apparently, an article about Bill Clinton's dead dog.
What a crock.
And, just to completely and for all time blow this foolish idea out of your mind, Rob, here you go!
Enjoy ... (now, let's watch you run from this thread at warp seven)
posted
I too am waiting for some sort of answer by our more conservative members of the board to the above linked research.
[ April 04, 2002, 13:51: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I did not say the media was liberal. I said the media was obsessed with Bill Clinton, even though he was out of office.
That does not make the media liberal, it simply makes them jerks.
Citing single examples which exist doth not a 'trend' refute. Sure, you can say that Fox is conservative. But Fox is vastly outnumbered, stations and coveragewise, by CBS, NBC, and ABC. As for cable, conservatives weren't the only ones jokingly referring to CNN as the 'Clinton News Network.' (I don't know the editorial slant of UPN and WB, since aside from Star Trek shows, I never watch either of them.)
Goldberg may have been wrong about the labeling of 'Conservative' and 'Liberal,' but that's a fairly minor point in his argument. For Nunberg to pretend that a refutation of that point refutes the entire argument is intellectually dishonest... it's like saying you can disprove God's existence because you can show that Genesis isn't literally correct.
The article of the dog isn't my 'proof.' It's a tiny bit of evidence. Tahna's article is another tiny bit. We're just adding up the bits and seeing where the total leads us. Testing a hypothesis. Why are you objecting so strenuously? Is it that great a danger to your faith?
I still intend to check the RGPL and do an article count. If it shows that the post-term (say at a limit of one year, since that's how long BCs been out) article counts for Bush 1 and Clinton (and maybe, to extend the sample, Carter and Reagan) are roughly the same, I will admit my hypothesis of bias in this area to be in error.
If not, though, it will be confirmation that I am correct, and the media is riding Clinton like the Man Train, and I will wave it around like a Sizerian member.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
A a not uncritical Newsweek article combined with speculation about the respective amount of ink spilled over presidental canine deaths are "bits of evidence" supporting the idea that the "media" is obsessed with Bill Clinton.
Wow. This I gots to see.
First though, what exactly do you mean by obsessed? Are you saying that no one in interested in reading about what the only 20th century president ever impeached is doing while out of office? Or could it simply be that you don't care and that this is your anti-Clinton "bias" showing though?
A more reasonable explanation would be the substitution of fluff pieces for actual hard news in the mainstream media as it becomes more news-tainment. But if that's what the market wants isn't that what the market gets? Afterall, if people were really so upset about seeing piece after piece after piece about Bill Clinton, wouldn't they just stop watching or subscribing? That would change the "media's" tune real quick since they are owned by large profit-driven corporations afterall.
Still, news-tainment is another probematic area which gives us the members of the press fawning over say, George W. Bush as well as expressing interest ing Bill Clinton's post-presidential fund-raising.
Oh, and another question. Which is it, a hypothesis of "obsession" or a hypothesis of "bias." You use the two as if interchangable in your post and we both know that they are not.
[ April 05, 2002, 16:55: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I suppose, worded correctly, the hypothesis would be "The majority of the news media in ths country, for unknown or unspecified reasons, seems to be paying an inordinate amount of attention to the post-presidential life of William Jefferson Clinton, as opposed to previous coverage of other, similar figures in their first year out of office."
The dog story and the Newsweek piece are two of many bits, including his trip to the WTC (okay, as a new NY'er, one might expect him to simply show up, but I believe that there was more than that at the time), and other news bits.
After some consideration, I accept the possibility that my perceptions of this may be skewed by sensitization, much in the same way that when you buy a new car, you immediately start noticing all the other cars on the road that look like your new car.
This is why I'm still doing the research. To find out. Nobody objects to finding out, do they?
[ April 04, 2002, 17:48: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:including his trip to the WTC (okay, as a new NY'er, one might expect him to simply show up, but I believe that there was more than that at the time), and other news bits.
That and that Chelsea was in downtown Manhattan on 9/11 ...
posted
.....it seems to me, after reading all of this and seeing the news, that the media is sensationalising everyday things on an ex-Pres that had the most news coverage while in office. They, like television, will display what will sell, plain and simple.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
