"A CRITICAL EYE ON THE MEDIA"

        That's what a C.N.N. program claims it "turns" every week, and every week it alibis and accepts the most outrageous kinds of media irresponsibility.

        In a free society, the media is very important.  Its task is to ferret out the news and report it to "Whee, The People."  It is supposed to be non-biased.  It is supposed to be accurate.  It is supposed to be well sourced.  It is supposed to be nonpartisan.

        True, there are and have been tabloids which violate most of the above. They print almost anything without confirmation and seek only to titillate and thus sell their papers or television programs.

        But we have a right to expect something better from what may be called the "responsible" newspapers and other news outlets.

        That's why, when the unproven and unreported charge of rape by Juanita Broaddrick came out in the Wall Street Journal, it got so much attention.

        However, little attention was given to HOW it was presented by the Journal -- not as a news item, but as an editorial.

        Almost at once, because of the Journal's reputation, other media copied the story in their NEWS reports and in this fashion, it became somehow magically verified and true.

        It was neither.  And this program that claims to cast a critical eye on the media, Reliable Sources, hardly blinked an eye over this media legerdemain.

        Now the W.S.J. is at it again.  This time in a highly RACIST editorial comparing the President to a man that most white people believe is a murderer - O.J. Simpson.  It was composed to strongly resonate with women's fears.

        Without actually writing the words, the Journal piece conveys to its readers that both men GOT OFF.  It suggests that both are guilty men who escaped punishment and are still at large -- black, dangerous, batterer, killer and rapist.

        The article is devastating in its unproven charges.  It seeks with every word to convict the President based on the fact that he was not removed from office -- that he "got off" even though he was guilty.

        One has no problem feeling the hate behind this editorial.  It is mean and punishing.  Why would a reputable newspaper print something like that, something so blatantly RACIST, aimed especially at women?

        One reason is that they expect it to be taken up and reprinted or broadcasted by other media sources.  This has happened already.  It is especially popular on "Hate/shock Radio" where the entire piece is often read verbatim by hosts and callers.

        But mainly, it is the opening salvo of a G.O.P. plan to cover Clinton with so much mud, so often, that all Democratic candidates, at all levels, are spattered with it.

        This is called guilt by association.  If they can fill the news with charge after charge, proven or not, they believe it will cancel out all of the positive things done by Democrats.  Watch for those T.V. ads to come showing your local and regional candidates "morphing" into Clinton.

        And they are getting help from some surprising sources -- former White House aids.  While we commend whistleblowers who often risk much to expose the harm their employer is doing, we abhor the tattle-tale-peep-show put on for profit by Georgie-boy Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers and Mike McCurry, among others.

        If life at the White House was so bad, they should have quit and said so.  Their actions bring back the rank smell and jingle of 40 pieces of silver, or in Georgie's case, 2 Mil plus.

        Our hats are off to former aids like Ron Emanuel and Paul Begala. They may have something to say about their time with Clinton, but they intend to save it until after he leaves office.

        This won't make them rich but doing the decent thing, showing loyalty, is reward enough for a person of character.

        With all the news sources, how does one decide what is fact and what is fiction?  Best way we've found is the WEB.  Here may be found articles that cover all areas of an event.

        PROJECT CENSOREDWomen are finding this out as more and more of us are going online -- we now nearly equal males in number taking advantage of this resource.

        FAIRRead the different opinions and you will come up with something approaching the facts.

        Better still, YOU WILL HAVE FORMED YOUR OWN CONSENSUS not just accepted the opinion of one commentator.

        Also, tune in and observe the media's self-adulation.  Programs like R.S., for example, where T.V.'s self appointed media critic, Howard Kurtz, brings on the media to critique the media!

        Thus this CNN program continues to turn its own eye on itself while being highly critical of any other agency that does it.

        They are so careful not to ask US -- the listening public -- what we think.  Honest evaluation is not what they are looking for -- just mutual vindication.

        The excuse they use for continuing to feature sensational journalism over fact is that THE PUBLIC DEMANDS IT.  They know this, they claim, because these programs have a large audience.

        What crap!  A large audience would watch a train wreck or an airplane crash that was featured in the news, but certainly would not demand that it be played over and over ad nauseum.

        But their most common excuse is one we are all familiar with as parents or children or both. "Everybody else is doing it."

        That still doesn't make it right, Howie.

        Twanda@ConnRiver.net

        1999-012

        Copyright 1999 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@ConnRiver.net.

        G e n d e r G a p p e r s   T M