From: Gene McAloon 

Even odder thinking, but typical of the far-right with the usual fantasies about
an allegedly liberal media and the march to socialism.

Odder still is that you have got the cart before the horse in supposing that the
media has its own agenda independent of political parties, let alone the public.
It is a given in politics that the media never leads and always follows. 
That is what they have got in mind when it is said that the media is so
easily manipulated, as indeed it is and demonstrably so.

Nor is a secret that most of the media is far more subject to manipulation
by conservatives than liberals. The most recent examples, of course, are
how the media never gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt during his
presidency while until very recently always giving the benefit of the doubt
to Bush. The most egregious example was during the Reagan administration
when the media marched in
lockstep to whatever Reagan did if only because he was so popular with most
of the public.

Of course I am talking now about the mainstream media; the major
newspapers, magazines and TV.


On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 00:49:58 -0400, "Mark"  wrote:

>I'm not talking about what Kerry wants or would want, I'm talking about what
>the media thinks would be best for them. They don't actually give two thumb
>thumps for Kerry in particular, they simply want to do their liberal thing
>and Bush doesn't fit that mold, hence, their perception would be reversing
>course as advantageous to their cause when a liberal is in office.
>
>If they're successful in outing Bush this November, via their slanted
>reporting, the backlash will begin four years later after Kerry's failed
>"diplomacy" and "nuance," get us into trouble
(interpretation: Chirac
>doesn't give two craps about the US, be it Kerry, Bush, or
"Kadiddlehopper")
>and the Dems will be impotent for decades thereafter.
>
>I'm sure that the Dems will be much better off letting Bush
>continue his doctrine for another term and then take the Presidency in 2008
>to move the country back on the road to socialism after the
>foreign/terrorist threat has been neutralized by the hawks vs. the "daisy
>zipper-pull" doves of the Kerry administration.
>
>That puts me in a quandary, do I want Kerry to win, thus ensuring a long
>darkness in the socialist platform in the future?, or do I want Bush to win
>to save lives in the short-term? I think I'll come down on the side of Bush,
>but I may live to regret it if it empowers the Dems for too long in the 2008
>forward aftermath.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5