Subject: Liberal Reporting
Dear Bartcop,
Please excuse me, but I know virtually nothing
about American politics or the general history of shows like Dateline and
the others you mentioned, or heir tendencies.
I'm just asking this in pure response to your Liberal
media "what if".
all those show have done hit pieces on Clinton
and none responded with a rebuttal. that has happened. but dateline
has not done a hit piece on bush. So how
do you know what anyone's response would be?
that's why it's a what if.
you don't know the response and it is only your opinion.
Paul, if I hold a pencil out in front of my body and let go, it's my
opinion it will fall to the ground.
Of course, I can't guarantee that to a 100 percent certainty,
but every other time I've dropped
a pencil it has fallen to the ground so I'm willing to bet it would
do the same thing next time.
having said that, I acknowledge that you would
be familiar with these shows and their political leanings and ways
they handle any story. and most people actually
considering "Exhibit A" would (I gather from your assuredness)
agree with you about their response to a bush
bashing.I'm not trying to shoot you down in flames, I'm just curious
about how you would defend this. despite everyone
(or just you) being SURE that they would respond with rebuttal,
it hasn't happened. so how can you say that,
given that you are so narky about accurate reporting and accusations/fact?
is it fair to condemn people for something YOU
expect them to do? if they TEND to do this, that would imply that
they have done this and would be expected to
do it again.
Paul, I'm not sure how your second paragraph differs from the first,
but the answer is the same.
From early 1992 to the present, I'll guess at least 50,000 wild accusations
and personals slurs
have been leveled against Bill and Hillary Clinton if you allow for
duplicates. (Rush, Hannity, Laura,
Harvey, North, Bennett etc all leveling identical wild charges and
slurs every day for a decade...)
Except for a few websites, NOBODY will even print the facts about Bush.
Facts such as his being AWOL during the Vietnam war, his stint doing
cocaine community service,
his Harken stock swindle, his inability to think, comprehend or form
a sentence etc.
These are serious crimes and deficiencies that affect every American
and possibly every country,
but they're seen as less important than some salicious rumor about
which way Clinton's cock points.
I don't say that to shock, either. During impeachment, CNN and FOX
and NBC - all of them did
"news shows" on which way Clinton's cock pointed. It's
a fact. It's in the honest history books.
now, I am going to assume that either they have
done this before (responded with a rebuttal to a bush bashing)
or they have done it to a president that is very
similar to Bush in such a typical way that the programs agenda
becomes clear through a pattern, so you would
expect them to do it to bush as he is a particular "type" of president.
My question is really, what are these situations?
can you describe them to me, I am actually quite interested
to see if the programs have been so clearly political
in their reporting.
The point is the double standard.
Clinton was asked about his private sex life going back decades, but
Bush has never
been made to answer the question, "How many
times have you been arrested?"
Clinton's sex life is our business, but the man who stole the White
House doesn't need
to tell us how many times he's been arrested for committing crimes?
When a reporter asked Bush "So you've been
arrested a total of three times?"
Karen Hughes screamed, "This interview
is over!!!" and nobody has asked that question since
If you fail to see a double standard there, I must doubt your ability
to grasp the obvious.
I apologise if any parts of this email are difficult
to understand. I hope you will consider my questions.
Again, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm
just interested. because if you don't know any of these things,
then you're wrong, and you don't sound like you
are. Please keep in mind I know very little about American
politics or the shows you discuss and my information
comes entirely from you article.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul, the situation I describe is so bizzare, it's almost impossible to believe, yet it does exist.
The snotty rich kid who never worked a day in his life was illegally
handed the presidency without
ever having to answer any questions about crimes he has committed,
but the guy born with nothing,
the man who worked his way up from a poor home in Arkansas and eventually
won election to the
highest position on Earth and saved the American economy from bankruptcy
was crucified,
and continues to be crucified to this day by Bush's good puppy press.
It's an abortion of democracy, but with a crooked Supreme Court, we're forced to eat it.