SB> ML> Many people only read the first few sentences of an
SB> ML> article and skip along to the next article.
SB>
SB> Guess your little faux pas proved that point...  ;-)
Yes, that's true.  However, I had already read a similar article, so
I chose not to read yours through its entirety.  I just wanted to
voice a pet peeve about the press.
SB> ML> (2) I thought that AP should have led off the article with
SB> ML> that point, which in my opinion was the most important point
SB> ML> of the article. The fact that the Clintons along with the
SB> ML> federal judiciary soaked the taxpayers once again should have
SB> ML> been the title of the article and not simply an afterthought.
SB>
SB> Hehehe... what fantasy world are you living in? I'm gratified to
SB> finally see the media include such chestnuts in their reports --
SB> the tide is turning and we are seeing more balance slowly creep
The press has often told the "truth" in its stories but has sneaky
ways of minimizing the truth: (a) burying the important facts at the
end of the article, (b) using headlines to mislead or pre-bias the
reader, (c) burying the article in some obscure part of the paper
instead of putting it on the front page where it belongs, and (d)
using bias in its choice of adjectives, e.g., Gingrich "claims"
while Clinton "says" as fact.  How often do you hear the press use
the term "controversial" and Limbaugh in the same sentence, but
you'll never hear "controversial" used with Jesse Jackson (even
though he is so)?
I've also seen cases where my local newspaper uses AP articles but
not in their entirety.  I'll see the exact same article on the
Internet, but my paper will omit the important parts.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0232
---------------