© 2000

---

"THE ATTACKS ON BUSH WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY VICIOUS"
NEWSWEEK’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

    Newsweek Washington bureau reporter and MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman let it slip out this morning: The liberal media’s double standard is benefiting Al Gore as the Democrat tries desperately to spin his way from defeat to victory.

    Fineman was a guest this morning on radio’s Imus in the Morning, simulcast on MSNBC, when host Don Imus asked the question that most liberal reporters dread: What if the roles were reversed?

    "What if Gore had won and Bush, what if the roles were reversed," Imus wondered. "How would, I wouldn’t want to include you in this, but how would the liberal weenies of the news media be treating this if the roles were reversed?"

    "Oh, my God. Are you kidding?" Fineman truthfully replied. "That George Bush was a crybaby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed President. You know, you could just hear, the personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious."

    But, as Fineman knows, the networks aren’t calling Gore a crybaby or subjecting him to vicious personal attacks. Monday, all of the broadcast networks interrupted prime time to carry Gore’s plea for patience; Sunday, NBC refused to give the certified winner, George W. Bush, a similar chance to speak live and unedited to the entire country.

    Instead, in the Eastern and Central time zones, NBC showed Titanic, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. For those who missed the movie so they could watch the finale of this historic election: the ship sank.

 

To speak with an MRC spokesperson regarding the media’s coverage of Campaign 2000, call Katie Wright at (703) 683-5004.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), November 29, 2000

Answers

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

>> ...the networks aren’t calling Gore a crybaby or subjecting him to vicious personal attacks. <<

I always thought news reporters were supposed to report the news. Has the job description changed? Am I supposed to cry foul because the media aren't "calling Gore a crybaby or subjecting him to vicious personal attacks"????

Fineman's speculation that, if Bush were pursuing a victory in court, as Gore is, that the media would be engaged in that sort of unconscionable news manipulation can only be called what it is: pure speculation.

But, any time our news sources do engage in "vicious personal attacks", we should all be yelling foul! Loudly and continuously! And backed up by a boycott of the offender!

(Unfortunately I never watch the TV network news, or CNN, or tv news of any description any more, so my boycotting them wouldn't be noticed.)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 29, 2000.

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

[Fineman's speculation that, if Bush were pursuing a victory in court, as Gore is, that the media would be engaged in that sort of unconscionable news manipulation can only be called what it is: pure speculation.]

And by subtle implication, Fineman's opinion is pure blue sky guesswork, based on nothing but having an asshole like everyone else. I guess a newsman's opinion about the presentation of news is as worthless as a doctor's opinion about what might be medically wrong with you. That is, utterly unsupported and meaningless. Uh huh.

Meanwhile, NBC really DID interrupt their programming to broadcast Gore's speech, and really DIDN'T interrupt to present Bush's speech. A little fact that Brian somehow doesn't seem to notice, since otherwise this kind of bias would provoke his righteous ire. Right?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 29, 2000.

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

I just saw Tom Brokaw interview Gore on the NBC Nightly News. He definitely wasn't coddling him, it was more like lambasting. He was relatively easy on Cheney however.

-- Seeker (searching@low.and.high), November 29, 2000.

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

>> A little fact that Brian somehow doesn't seem to notice [...] <<

Well, duh!

I just told you in the same damn posting that (get ready - here's the quote): "I never watch the TV network news".

Now, I don't want to cast aspertions on your reading comprehension, Flint, but it seems to me that you might be able to understand from what I wrote that I never watch the TV network news!

In that case, how the heck do you expect me to cotton onto the fact that NBC did this, that or the other? Please explain.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 29, 2000.

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

Brian:

Glad you asked. Here is a quote from the very post to which you are replying. It's right up there at the top, where it's easy to find. It says:

[Monday, all of the broadcast networks interrupted prime time to carry Gore’s plea for patience; Sunday, NBC refused to give the certified winner, George W. Bush, a similar chance to speak live and unedited to the entire country.]

Now, about that reading comprehension...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 29, 2000.

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

Busted! I admit, I didn't read the entire article before responding. NBC is, by this description, also busted. If it is ire you want, Flint, I say: let's organize a boycott against NBC! That sounds like the kind of hell-raising that would be fun.

Not watching NBC wouldn't bother me none. Most network TV turns my stomach. About the only program I watch with pleasure is Whose Line Is It, Anyway? and it isn't on NBC. If worse came to worst, I could drop all TV and not suffer too many heart palpitations.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 29, 2000.

Response to NEWSWEEKÂ’S FINEMAN ADMITS THE MEDIA ARE CODDLING LOSER GORE

Brian:

I dig it. My TV is used to watch baseball games, and won't get turned back on for many months to come.

Now, I don't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities, but I really did wonder whether you might have actually tuned out that part I quoted, since you yourself quoted the sentence immediately preceding that one in the same paragraph!

You are a slippery person, Brian, because most of what I regard as a clear bias on your part isn't in what you write, but in what you do not appear to notice. And how do I deal with your demand that I *quote* all the things that you never said, that *should* have been red flags in your face if your outlook was as you claim? Here is another case where you claim a professional's opinion about his own profession is "pure speculation" and don't even SEE a clear example of bias. Isn't it about time you fess up to having a clear preference, for which you are also building a case here?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 29, 2000.