Conference ljsrv1::tv_chatter

    Steve some of what you've written may be true - no longer objective
    etc. but I remeber feeling the same way during the Reagan the Bush
    years.  So I believe it all depends on how cynical you (not you specific
    you in general) are towrds what is being reported.  I strongly believe
    everyone should take everything we see, especially hear with a grain of
    salt.  Like newspapers (I remember the Herald backing Silber - UGHHHH)
    they are run by humans and it must be difficult for an editor to
    separate her opinions from 'just the facts' - How about the stupidest
    (in my opinion) poll I ever heard was taken - 4 blocks from the
    Democratic National convention people were asked if they believed the
    Democrats would gain control of the White House in 93?  
    
    So yes Steve I've noticed it too but for me it gave me a warm hopeful
    feeling until I reminded myself to 'take it with a grain of salt'
    
    But no, I don't think TV news is a pawn of the Democratic Party.
    
    Joyce 

  This is a common complaint put forward by right wing think tanks and I
couldn't disagree more. What happened was that the conservatives got use to
controlling the public dialogue during the 80's when the popularity of Reagan
and Bush was at it's highest and now that Reagonomics has failed people are
insisting on more objective reporting. 

  During the 80's, Republicans could say anything and no one questioned a word
they said. Everyone was happy with the "Teflon president" and those who said
Reagonomics was only working due to massive deficit spending were ignored. Now
that Reagonomics has resulted in the largest deficit in the history of the
world and the 2nd worse economic slump of the century, other ideas are getting
equal time and right wing think tankers are crying foul. 

  But unlike the pro-conservative reporting of the 80's, Clinton is taking his
lumps along with the credit. He was beat up badly by the media for not
realizing in advance that the nation was against illegal aliens as baby
sitters. He also took more heat than any president before him for the timing in
which he announced cabinet officials. He endured the strongest press scrutiny
ever experienced by a president elect for the 2 months leading up to his
inauguration and he was certainly beat up over personal issues during the
campaign.

  What's happening is that for the right wing, the gravy train is over. There's
no more standing up and bleating on and on about tax cuts unless politicians
are willing to be specific as to where the corresponding spending cuts would be
made. We can no longer afford to cut taxes, raise spending and borrow to
make up the difference which is the legacy of Reagonomics. 

  While aggressive, the political reporting we've heard since the recession hit
bottom has been the most objective reporting we've heard in 12 years. It's a
very welcome breath of fresh air. 

  George 

    You know, it's funny you bring up this topic.  I feel that the
    opposite was true for most of the '80s while Reagan was running 
    up the incredible deficit we are now saddled with.  For some reason,
    the press always treated him with kid gloves.  The "me first"
    generation spawned by the Reagan years fed off this laizze faire
    approach the media had toward Reagan.  Now that it's time to pay
    up for the head in the sand approach of those years, the media has
    suddenly decided to emphasize the potentially destructive nature of 
    the federal deficit, which they tacitly approved of by just going
    along with the Reagan-Bush years instead of publicizing the depth
    of the staggering debt we now face.
    
    NAZZ

    Here's some anecdotal evidence:
    
    When popularity polls for Reagan and Bush were done, no one asked
    me (I was never in favor of either of them)...
    
    When popularity polls were done for the Gulf War, no one asked me
    (I was against it, in favor of continued and stronger sanctions)
    
    When polls were conducted about Clinton's economic plan, no one
    asked me (I'm in favor of it)...
    
    I agree with Nazz, seems like the media is concentrating on the
    potential negatives of Clinton's plan, without going into the
    same detail as to the potential benefits.  
    
    I do agree that polls may affect the opinion of some (those who
    might otherwise say Not Sure if asked), but in general, polls
    are to be taken with a large grain of salt.  Depending on how
    questions are phrased, the same people might answer questions about
    the same topic in entirely different ways.
    
    
    Richard

It may have something to do with the adulation of the current president as opposed to
a particular party.

(As long as he's popular of course ;^) )

	Bob

  Today ABC news beat up Clinton for only having nominated 80 out of 200 some
odd sub cabinet positions, they had a line up of people saying his welfare
reform wouldn't work, and they beat him up again saying that his investments
would offset the budget cuts resulting in a large deficit. 

  If that's adulation, I wonder what the criticism will sound like? I can't
remember once during the 80's when the Republicans got beat up the way Clinton
takes a hammering every night by the evening news. 

  George 

    
    Just an aside...wouldn't it be great if they had all their cabinet
    nominated before the election? 
    
    Steve

  There are problems with that. For one thing, the president could change his
mind after the election. Second, the best people might not be willing to quit
their old job in advance to take a chance on their guy getting elected. 

  ABC News pointed out that the reason it was taking so long is that Clinton is
a hands on type of guy that insists on interviewing them all himself. Also
trying to get both diversity and talent takes longer because minorities and
women are not as available in the traditional stepping stone positions. Another
problem might be that it's been so long that democrats were in power that the
qualified people are not in government at all but are out in the private
sector. 

  Anyway it's not all that big a deal. By summer they will all be in place and
the media which always thinks that today's problem is much bigger than it
really is, will have forgotten all about it. 

  George