Drudge shows the double standard yet again.

[Ustwo]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN FEB 15, 2004 23:00:32 ET XXXXX

FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS

As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!

In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.

CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.

"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."

Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":

"Have you ever had an affair?"

CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:

"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."

"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."

UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:

"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."

CUT TO 2004:

NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."

The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]

Conason lamented:

"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."

But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"

Consaon's reason #1:

"He cheats on his wife."

The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.

The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

But there is no Liberal biased media. That’s a myth of the right, right?

You know guys the first step to solving a problem is to admit that you have a problem. Ironically while the British press is all aflutter with Kerry sex scandal pieces, almost nothing has been said in the US mainstream press.

Now I don't know if Kerry did or didn't, but its no more a story then President Bush's service record which has shown quite clearly he was where he was suppose to be.

[Harshaw]

Oh, they found out what he was doing for that lost year when he was in Alabama?

Is this the same Liberal media that covered every inch of Clinton's affairs?

[filtherton]

I think clearly Alter is acting ironically.
Still, to paint this as just another example of the liberal media is just a little silly.
For every example you can provide of a newsperson acting with apparent liberal bias, an example can be found showing an instance counteracting that idea or showing conservative bias.

But, if you'll allow me to paraphrase your common response to "bush haters": "Why don't you just admit that you'll never change your mind on this and there is no way for anyone, despite the evidence, will ever convince you that you are wrong." Just keep blaming the liberal media, right?

[Dostoevsky]

Why do leftist deny that they control most media outlets? Why don't they enjoy and gloat about it. Many Americans don't have the critical thinking skills to sort the bullshit from the facts presented on the news and are easily swayed to vote democratic by what they see on TV. That's just me being paranoid, right?

[Nizzle]

Originally posted by Dostoevsky
Why do leftist deny that they control most media outlets?

Because they don't. Pretty simple. Next?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Nizzle
Because they don't. Pretty simple. Next?

Denial is always the first step.

[Nizzle]

I'd also like to point out that the woman in question has denied the affair. In fact, Matt Drudge has absolutely no credible evidence that an affair ever happened. Why then would the media -- with any bias -- want to run with this story, when it is clearly a work of libel on the part of an ultra right-wing website?

A woman who has been the subject of rumors linking her to Sen. John Kerry denied Monday that she ever had an affair with the Democratic presidential candidate.

Breaking her silence four days after the allegations surfaced on the Internet, Alexandra Polier issued a statement to The Associated Press, saying, "I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false."

[Sparhawk]

Geez, I can't think of anything that happened between '92 and '04 that would explain the public and the media's distaste for meddling in politicians' personal lives. Can you??

[filtherton]

I think it is highly ironic for anyone who watched the media's sham flavored post 9/11 through "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" coverage to try to claim that the media is too liberal.

Nope, i guess it is i who am in denial. Maybe you could help me by pointing out, by name and also by proof of their liberal motives, all the liberals who run viacom and fox. The dirty liberals behind the wall street journal. Those filthy commies at the new york post.

This really deserves a and a

[Harshaw]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Denial is always the first step.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Nizzle]

It's just another dirty trick. The idea is to lay the "Liberal Media" accusations on heavy, which puts undue pressure on media outlets who are concerned about appearing fair to not report in a way that might be perceived as "too Liberal". In the meantime, all the conservative media sources (which are most of them, including the most viewed news source in America Fox News) lay it on without reservation. It's a pretty good racket. The net effect is that there is no Liberal Media. That's the way they want it. Even news sources like NPR are nearly centrist in their rabid avoidance of airing too Liberal viewpoints. They do so to retain credibility, which is understandable but sad that they can be manipulated in such a way.

Here's the simple fact: ClearChannel which controls nearly all radio, and Fox News -- which controls over 85% of the market for broadcast news -- are undeniably and unabashedly Conservative. There really isn't much more to discuss. I'm sorry, but the Op/Ed section of one single newspaper (New York Times) is not enough to support the farce of Liberal Media. For every major news source you can claim is Liberal, I will point out two that are Conservative.

The rank and file Republicans just repeat the "Liberal Media" mantra because Rush and the other talking heads speak it as if it were truth. Most Republicans can't (and don't want to) think for themselves. Rush or Anne says it, it's true.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Nizzle
Most Republicans can't (and don't want to) think for themselves. Rush or Anne says it, it's true.

That argument can cut both ways.

[Nizzle]

Originally posted by Lebell
That argument can cut both ways.

I'm not the one linking op/ed pieces from Liberal websites.

This may be of interest to some: Columbia's Journalism Review: Who Owns What. A fun drinking game might be to list all the local radio stations and take a shot whenever one of them is owned by ClearChannel, Viacom, or Disney. (Hint: none of these corporations are Liberal)

Here in the "Liberal" San Francisco bay area, I found that nearly every single radio station was owned by one of these corporations. In addition to that, ClearChannel and Viacom own every single billboard along the major highway routes. Guess what's on them? If you guessed ads for Michael Savage's radio show, complete with pictures of Saddam Hussein getting a dental examination with big letters "REALITY CHECK DAILY," you are the winner. I pass 4 of these on my 30 minute commute along Highway 101. There are no Liberal billboards. There are no liberal radio talkshows, unless you want to count the very centrist NPR. There is certainly no Liberal television news.

Where is this Liberal media? Seriously?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Nizzle

Where is this Liberal media? Seriously?

Dan Rather, Petter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, NY Post, San Fran Chroncial, LA Times. That should cover a few.

Conservative works on talk radio because Liberal 'logic' breaks down when you have to do things like take calls and listen to other peoples ideas. I can't WAIT for the 'liberal' talk station to start, I hope it has a lot of backing money because its not going to survive based on market forces. It should be funny though.

[Nizzle]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Dan Rather, Petter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, NY Post, San Fran Chroncial, LA Times. That should cover a few.

The fact that you list NY Post as being Liberal pretty much says it all. Either that you have no idea what you are talking about, or your idea of Liberal is pretty skewed from reality. I suggest you do some more research about the New York Post.

The fact that you list San Francisco Chronical, a bay area local rag, shows you are desperate to grow your list. I know you don't like it, but San Francisco is a fairly Liberal city. Obviously its major newspaper is going to reflect that in some fashion. Shall I start listing Southern Bible Belt city's newspapers as proof of a Conservative media?

Your listing CNN is just odd. What the hell is Liberal about this sensationalist swill? They made their name by exploiting the first Gulf war with a sports-like coverage that made it look fun and exciting. They pay more attention to Michael Jackson than to coverage of the imminent civil war in Iraq. Again, your perspective on what is Liberal is puzzling.

Conservative works on talk radio because Liberal 'logic' breaks down when you have to do things like take calls and listen to other peoples ideas.

What usually breaks down is the talk show host, who cuts off the caller and shouts them down. Yes, I listen to some of these shows occasionally to see what the heads are yammering about. The callers are all carefully screened to provide the effect that they want. You don't realize this? Puh-leez.

I can't WAIT for the 'liberal' talk station to start, I hope it has a lot of backing money because its not going to survive based on market forces. It should be funny though.

It will surely be as obnoxious as the right wing talk shows. I have no arugment there.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Nizzle
I'm not the one linking op/ed pieces from Liberal websites.

and....?

[Dostoevsky]

Well I suppose we can all argue until our fingers get numb but the fact that the media is controlled by liberals and that some of us are in denial over this will not change.

CNN is not liberal?? There goes some credibility. Whose opinion of liberal are you saying is skewed?

[Zeld2.0]

And what makes you believe that your very own sources are not conservative and are saying that the media is liberal?

This thing can cut both ways, and frankly put, neither side's arguments are very convincing because for every claim, there is a counter.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
And what makes you believe that your very own sources are not conservative and are saying that the media is liberal?

This thing can cut both ways, and frankly put, neither side's arguments are very convincing because for every claim, there is a counter.

Man, that is so true.

Do a google on "liberal bias" and you get stuff left AND right arguing both ways.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Lebell
Man, that is so true.

Do a google on "liberal bias" and you get stuff left AND right arguing both ways.

I don't understand the liberal vs. conservative debate.

It seems to me that our media is mainly controlled by corporate interests. I don't know (or care) whether that implies conservative bias. I suspect that media outlets will support any endeavor that will serve to line their pockets--not on the basis of political ideology.

I think outlets don't cover Iraq nasties, not due to partisan support for the pres, but due to the fact that their mother corps build jets, bombs, and bullets. Their sister corps hold the fuel teat. But I doubt it matters whether libs are watching Will & Grace or cons are watching Hannity--the corps get paid when everyone watches their shows.

They'll pander to whatever interest sells. Why would people from both sides support the use of their eyeballs as the po-mo commodity? I think it's sick, but this debate reroutes needed scrutiny away from the whoreish practices of our major media outlets--the organizations that were once viewed as vital checks against government power and a necessary component of a thriving democracy.

[pan6467]

Can't anyone see that noone is arguing issues like where is the money for education, highway improvement, healthcare for the elderly, the deficit, and so on and so on.

Why is noone arguing and doing something about the fact the Dr.s are leaving states like Ohio because malpractice is outrageous. Or these Dr.s are refusing to help in nursing homes or take medicare or medicaid patients because they can't afford to see low paying patients?

What about students that are reading 10-15 year old books because the school can't afford newer ones?

NOOOOOO.............. let's argue over whether the press is biased.......... let's argue over whether or not some candidate slept with a legal aged lady that wasn't his wife.

HEAVEN FORBID WE LOOK AT THE FREAKING ISSUES AND TRY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM REGARDLESS OF PARTY, WE MAY FIND WE AREN'T ALL THAT DIFFERENT IF WE WORKED TOGETHER TO FIND ANSWERS ON THE ISSUES.............. HELL NO LET'S JUST KEEP BLAMING RIGHT AND BLAMING LEFT AND WHEN IT'S ALL OVER WE CAN SIT THERE AND SAY "SEE TOLD YA NUSH WENT AWOL" OR "SEE TOLD YA KERRY WAS ANOTHER ADULTRER"

WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS? Someone tell me please, because all I see are fingers pointed and name calling and arguments over things that are freaking BS but they keep the true issues from being focused on.

[Zeld2.0]

Both smooth and pan6467 have great arguments - and I agree that in the end the corporations are after their own interests and will do whatever is needed to make the money they want - be it alienating a side or showing certain views.

And I also agree that too much emphasis is put on either "those damned liberals" or "those damned conservatives" - but at the same time, thats often because most of the time we can't get anythign done anyways

[Tophat665]

Originally posted by Dostoevsky
Why do leftist deny that they control most media outlets?

Well, it's because, if we come right out with it, they stop cutting us a check every month. /sarcasm

That's just me being paranoid, right?

Bingo.

[losthellhound]

How is biased media new news? AT least its balanced in the fact that each side owns thier own media outlets. For every operation that you could label "bush haters" ther are just as many who operate as if they had a personal office in the West Wing..

[lyxo]

nah, the media just like to bash whoever is out in front
big reason why dean is out of the race
and all the news coming out with kerry

i mean, in 1992, clinton got bashed for some sex scandal too from some lady whose hair still belonged in the 80's, but he still ended up top.

[Prince]

Of course the media has its own agenda. Ultimately that agenda is to make money. I don't see/care where liberalism/conservatism come into it, or why that should even matter.

As for these reports of politicians getting caught with infidelity...geez, what's the big deal? I don't care if a politician has sex with a horse as long as he does his job and does it well.

[Zeld2.0]

Anyways to put it this way - for those who watch sports and baseball, take ESPN.

Many of their columnists, writers, etc. all have their own "favorites" and ideas - one guy can present a slightly biased article favoring the Red Sox and bashing the Yankees and the other person would be the opposite.

Its rare IMO for entire newspapers unless otherwise stated to be completely biased in a direction or another - in fact, IMO, the writers have a much bigger part to play and you can easily have two articles with slightly different shades on teh same topic in one newspaper.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by smooth
*snip*

I agree 100%.