Media inaccurately depicts itself as objective

On Clinton himself, 40 million dollars or so was spent in a politically poisonous atmosphere to try to find anything that could be used against the man. Nothing surfaced but a sleazy personal life. Impeachment charges were brought and failed. The Courts and the Congress decided. Clinton is clean. Get over it - unless you have one standard for Bush vs. Gore and another for Clinton.

This is tedious and ignores the fact that plenty surfaced but the Senate Republicans simply refused to view the evidence or to vote against Clinton and remove him from office. They were political cowards and they gave Clinton a pass. Courts fined him and took away his law license so he certainly was never close to being 'clean' only fortunate enough to benefit from cowardly Republicans and a liberal-dominated media that supported him 100%, non-stop.

The comparison to the 2000 election ruling is bogus. That was about vote counting. The high court took away Clinton's right to appear before them and all twelve members of the Court refused to attend Clinton's State of the Union address to Congress. Just coincidence, I suppose. Fact is, the Court members knew what he was and refused to pretend otherwise, as you have done here.

Clinging to the legalities is quite common when Clinton is being defended. This is the mindset that finds Bill Clinton not being impeached as equivalent to being 'clean'. If Clinton is clean, so is O.J.

ln the central point of the thread - the effect of bias in the major news media - I think I've made my position clear in my other posts.

And you are manifestly wrong.

There's a great line in "Key Largo". Edward G. Robinson explains how he got his men elected

"They counted the votes over and over until it came out right. Then he was elected."

Governments used to do that with trials. One can argue forever on the merits - or lack of - of every case. I chose to accept the verdicts in both cases. I chose to believe that those charged with deciding acted honestly. That if the charges had merit then Clinton would have been convicted. Clinton's license was revoked because he lied in Court about his sex life. I give him credit for that. (I wish he'd been bolder. "None of your damn business" would've been more appropriate instead of the weasly legalism he resorted to.)
I fault him for bad judgement and bad taste. Had he run off with Ann Coulter, that would have been a scandal worthy of the office. But Paula Jones? Monica Lewinsky? One night stands? The President as a barfly or pimply-faced adolescent? And he did it knowing his enemies were deadly serious and utterly ruthless. I don't fault him too much either. Sexual promiscuity has always been the prerogative of wealth and power, and many have indulged. Our culture chooses to be dishonest about it.

And you are manifestly wrong

A simple assertion. No proof required. Why don't you assert that the sun circles the earth? Maybe it will be true.

The high court took away Clinton's right to appear before them and all twelve members of the Court refused to attend Clinton's State of the Union address to Congress

By the way, would you name all 12 members? I can't get past 9. Thanks.

...30% of American homes don't get cable channels -- only broadcast TV, meaning only ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS.

We don't have cable, either, but we still get hundreds of channels... via satellite TV. Maybe, a large portion of the 30%, who don't get cable, have satellite TV like we do.

The extent of Clinton's corruptness and dishonesty is not worth the argument at this late date. You will believe as you wish and many liberals will join you in claiming Clinton's crimes were only sexual and everyone does it. Same old. Still wrong and history will take care of it.

For now, Bill Clinton is an embarrassment to the nation. He should take his millions and shut up but then, he would have to have some class to do that so of course it won't happen. Too bad. I'm sick of hearing about Bill Clinton and would be happy to never have to talk about him again but liberals seem to have a need to keep defending him, over and over, as if that will make him the poor victim they wish him to be. Keep trying but don't expect it to happen. Clinton is what he is; corrupt, dishonest and when in power, a dangerous man.

A simple assertion. No proof required. Why don't you assert that the sun circles the earth? Maybe it will be true.

How droll. The assertion is true and unlike the sun circling the earth, it's quite obvious and provable. That you choose to ignore or deny the fact is your problem, not mine. Your assertion that conservatives have equal influence in the media is simply not a supportable statement, try as you might to make it so.

I see no point in trying to prove what is already apparent and clear to a person who refuses to see what he doesn't fit his ideology. I don't have time for these silly arguments and the fact that liberals simply choose to deny reality when it comes to Clinton or liberal influence in the media changes nothing. The facts, fortunately, do not change to suit your ideology - or mine - no matter how many posts anyone submits saying otherwise.

Yes, I posted in haste and transposed the numbers of jurors on a trial for the nine Supreme Court Justices. An admitted error in numbers that changes nothing about the point made by the nine Justices in boycotting Clinton's address to Congress.

Your smugness in pointing out the obvious error is as tedious as your arguments regarding Clinton or liberal dominance in the media. You're really wasting my time at this point. We disagree. Let it go.

I chose to use Clinton as an exemple to dramatically illustrate my point that the media only has a limited ability to change one's political position. Not to argue the merits of Clinton's position.

I am the son of New Deal immigrants. I adopted their politics and stayed with them until my own personal experience led me to believe otherwise. I believed the media because they supported my beliefs. Had they not I would have found different media to read. I did exactly that several times in my life. My experience is not atypical.

I voted for Clinton the first time because he was a Democrat. I knew nothing about him. I voted for him the second time because I liked his image and his policies. I didn't follow the charges against him very closely because I had no reason to take them seriously. I choose to believe the verdict of the Courts and the Congress for all the same reasons. Naturally Republicans - especially Arkansas Republicans - would have a different view.

I recognize that my opinion of Clinton is superficial. I know his image and something of his policies. Much will be revealed by historians - as always.

But my original point stands. The media has only limited power to change our opinions.

Your assertion that conservatives have equal influence in the media is simply not a supportable statement, try as you might to make it so

You're right. It's not supportable. But for a different reason than you think. It's not my assertion.

Your smugness in pointing out the obvious error is as tedious as your arguments regarding Clinton or liberal dominance in the media

Reread your previous post. If you find my argument "tedious" and "manifestly wrong", you're not going to get a courteous response.

Yes, but the difference with Rush Limbaugh and Free Republic is they HONESTLY state their clear conservative bias. Try asking Dan Blather to state the truth that he is a flaming liberal.

I don't know about "flaming" but I think he'd be willing to characterize himself as a liberal. Do you know that to be false?

As for claims of objectivity in politics or reporting of political events - any man who makes those claims is suspect. Any man who believes them is a fool. The best that can be hoped for is honesty.

Good point.

-PJ

Yes I know that to be false- he denies being a liberal and claims to be 'moderate' and objective- and yes he is a flaming liberal