-
-
-
-
[liznote:
Click on the banner to visit
gendergap.com, a site owned by a friend
of ours (not affiliated with GenderGappers.)
You'll find lots of information and goodies.
It's an award-winning political site, where
you can get up-to-date and useful data on politics and candidates.]
 |
 |
 |
DISCONTENT
WITH CONTENT
Anyone who has found themselves pressured by the unwanted attention of the press has been chuckling delightedly the last few days. Their amusement stems from the fallout from an article in a new magazine called Content.
The magazine's purpose is to turn the tables, as it were, on the press. To examine media in depth, the way they do us when they "smell" a story. The first issue of Content started an angry buzz that still has not subsided. Turnabout may be fair play, but the 5th estate is not comfortable with being the object the truth-spotlight shines upon.
You remember when the Monica Lewinski story was breaking and reporters were scrambling for all the latest sleeze? We all heard about leaks from the Office of the Special Council. Of course, Kenny came right out and said, "Oh, no. No leaks from my office. I wouldn't allow that to happen."
His people even suggested to reporters (who passed it on to us) that the leaks were really coming from the White House and were meant to incriminate Kenny's office. The press readily reported this "fact" to one and all calling it more White House spin.
Then along comes Steve Brill about to publish a new magazine named Content (as in, "the content of this magazine will be stuff about the press"). He interviewed Kenneth Starr, S.C., and wrote an article.
Under Brill's questioning, Starr admitted to giving special "background" briefings to "select" reporters.
Ha! And all this time, the reporters were getting their briefings from Starr and gaily contributing to the rumors that the leaks came from the White House.
Now that Kenny outed them, they are screaming bloody murder claiming that, "everybody does it, background information is not illegal etc." They point out that Brill contributed to Democrats including President Clinton, and claim that it shows his bias.
They conveniently forget that only a short time ago Publisher Brill printed the very positive article about Paula Jones. The one that insisted that everyone had been unfair to her and that she might really have a case against the president and should be listened to. This does not sound like a biased person to us.
Far, far, far-right columnist, Cal Thomas shrills, "The latest smear is that Starr has violated the law by talking to a small number of journalists. But the White House personnel and other Clinton defenders have done the same thing."
Say what? The Grand Jury proceedings are secret. It is illegal for a special prosecutor to discuss or even refer to them. No such restrictions apply to you or us or anyone outside of these Grand Jury proceedings. He sounds like a little child proclaiming that, "Clinton did it too, so it's O.K. for Starr to!"
During the time when Bill Ginsburg was Lewinski's lawyer, journalists fell all over each other buying him lunches, dinners and drinks. Buying him and his access to Lewinski. This from a profession that claims to present unbiased reporting because they "do not pay for news."
What does all this mean to GenderGappers who look to the media for information on candidates? We suggest that it means we must diversify our news sources.
We
need to read reports on candidates from different viewpoints to get some
idea of what these people stand for and what they have stood for in the
past.
Once again, we have seen an example of the awesome power produced by the marriage of the attack add with million$ of dollars from unidentified contributors.
The tobacco lobby spent billion$ and many in the electorate were encouraged to contact their congressional representatives and urge them to vote against it. These very successful ads iterated and reiterated that the tobacco bill was a huge tax hike.
Some members of the press, to be sure, reported the facts of the bill, but they also reported the substance of the attack ads thus promulgating their message. With supporting calls and letters, the Republican majority leadership felt free to effectively kill the tobacco bill.
We need to be aware that the press is not, and should not, be above the law but we know that some reporters think themselves to be above the truth.
Brill's article found it's mark, to judge by the screams that still reverberate. We think there's a clear sense that, "they really do protest to much."
1998-026
Copyright 1998 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@together.net.
G e n d e r G a p p e r s T M
|
|
|