Re: [CTRL] Is the media turning on Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Sno0wl wrote: I keep hearing the media saying that as far as Clinton goes, it's all over. He's as good as impeached and politically dead. Any opinion that counters that view is given short shrift in passing. If the media IS doing this (and you seem to never give reference to specific media outlets, Marilyn), then it's something that's occurred since this weekend...what I've been hearing on NBC, CNN, FOX, is that Clinton is so popular, that all the polls prove how popular he is, so how can impeachment be seriously considered? It's only since the articles were actually passed by the Judiciary Committee and sent on to the House that, as was pointed out, there has been a subtle shift in the media's reporting...but what I've seen is a reaction akin to amazement that this is actually happening, and perhaps the rats are deciding to abandon a sinking ship... I think also that in the past, the WH wielded a lot of power in only 'allowing' certain reporters and media outlets access to the WH (this applies to past administrations, too, not just Clinton's)...and that now that impeachment seems imminent, those in the media realize they are in the position of Clinton now needing them more than they need him, and they are therefore taking advantage of the situation... This scenario would come about irregardless of the party and the politics of whomever was in the White House...the rats abandon the sinking ship and turn into a flock of vultures circling their dying victim... There's hardly any mention of what this trial would do to the country Not surprising, since the media's never discussed what Chinagate, Whitewater, Vince Foster and all the other murders, have done to this country, either... it's highly unlikely that the Senate would agree with an impeachment. Doesn't matter if the Senate 'agrees'...by the time it comes to the Senate for a trial, the president's already been impeached. Impeachment means only that a public official has been accused of misconduct in office...impeachment does NOT mean removal from office. If the House impeaches, then the Senate holds a trial...a trial which may or may not lead to Clinton's removal from office, but that's why the trial is held...to determine the validity of the charges... The national opinion may be 68-32 in favor of non-impeachment, but The 'national opinion' is as ignorant of what impeachment actually is (as your statement above displays you yourself to be), and therefore when asked about impeachment, 'the public' who equates the word with 'removal from office' answers in the negative... I'd hazard the guess that if the polls instead worded their questions more like: "Do you think the House of Representatives should adopt the charges against the President, and then have the Senate hold a trial based on those charges?", the answers would be very different... Tiresomebut essentially frightening. Not to mention the arm-twisting and career threats going on within Republican ranks to get the desired effect. And the anti-impeachment forces aren't doing the same thing? June ! _ _ _ _ _ _` __ _ _ _ |_ . _ _ _ | -~*~- _/_)(/_(_|/_)(_)| )/_) (_|| (/_(/_ | || )(_|/_) o /!\_| _| /%;@\ o/@,%\o /%;`@,\ o/@'%',\o '^^^M^^^` www.xs4all.nl/~klr *---* revcoal AT connix DOT com *---* It is UNLAWFUL to send unsolicited commercial email to this email address per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a fee of $500.00 US currency for reading and deleting such unsolicited commercial email. Sending such email to this address denotes acceptance of these terms. My posting messages to Usenet neither grants consent to receive unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email. ** DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
Re: [CTRL] Is the media turning on Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- There is a slight change in the coverage of Clinton, who has always been totally at the mercy of the big networks. Quick re-cap: In late 1997, Act I: Clinton refused to see Netanyahu twice, once when they were both on the same airfield. This is a guess, but I have a feeling peace-nik Clinton, thinking himself safe in his second term, didn't want to see further abuse of the "peace" process against the Palestinians - remember Hillary's declaration for a Palestinian state during a sensitive moment a few months ago? -- and for sure Clinton didn't want to become the first president to bomb another country (Iraq) who had not attacked somebody first. No doubt the spineless Clinton was being urged by more level-headed anti-Netanyahu Jewish factions in the USA to steer a more even-handed course, as no doubt they see the dangers immediately ahead involving terrorism -- and maybe WWIII. Act II: Netanyahu met with Clinton on the night of January 20, 1998, and came out to make a press statement carried by CNN in whic he said the meeting went pretty well, but Israel could only go so far . . . Act III: 8 hours later ALL FOUR BIG TV NETWORKS ordered their anchors to get up out of bed and leave Cuba, Casto, and John Paul II, to get back to New York and D.C. to cover the all-important Monica affair -- they all knew in advance it was going to be all-important, just as they knew in advance that the Gennifer Flowers and Paul Jones stories would not be that big a deal. (Hint: Flowers and Jones were getting in the way of Clinton's service to the dominant faction of World Jewry, Lewinsky was going to help put pressure on Clinton to come to heel and do what he was told by the Netanyahu faction.) Act IV: This was the clincher and you had to see it. From Jan 21, 98 to Jan 27, 98, there was "no smiles" coverage against Clinton; the story was no longer told from his angle; Clinton was treated as a virtual danger to society. This was "watergate" style coverage, very grave, no smiles -- COMPLETELY different from the coverage up to that point. So hostile was the coverage on all four Big TV channels (yes, all four) that Sam Donaldson actually wondered that Sunday, "Dare we say it, President Gore?" Act V: On the morning of Jan 27, the State of the Union address, everything changed (a deal must have been struck, as would become clear in the speech that night) -- now the press started to tell the story from Clinton's point of view again. Hey, suddenly ALL FOUR BIG TV NETWORKS (yes, all four of them) took notice that their house polls supported Clinton (another manipulated hoax) - the people LIKE him, and the job he's doing -- hey, leave him alone! That was the new message. And, what do you know?, that night Clinton threatened Saddam and Iraq in his speech -- and the mad dash was on for a murderous bombing campaign against Iraq. (Incidentally, this mode of coverage continued until this last week, which JYester pointed out, in which the story was told from Clinton's point of view, and emphasis was all on those network house polls which nobody who wants to remain on TV had better ever question too vigorously. (See the book SuperPollsters, How They Manipulate and Measure public opinion, by David Moore. Moore worked for Gallup for 20 years and the book is endorsed by David Broder !) Act VI: The fiasco at Ohio University in which Albright, Berger, and Cohen (the ABC's of America's decline) got thoroughly shellacked on worldwide TV by informed students and citizens at OSU --- combined with UN Kofi's visit to Iraq, -- thwarted the plans to bomb Iraq. The OSU town meeting was the greatest media fiasco for the Ruling Elite in my lifetime. The hypocrisy and doublestandard of the wamongering three Clintonistes on stage was thoroughly exposed. How many Americans ever stop to think how ridiculous it looks to Arabs in the Mideast that three Jews are sitting up there representing "our" government? Of course, their pals at the big TV networks would never point this out to the general public. Act VII: Did anyone notice how convenient it was that the MidEast peace conference was timed at the White House a week or so before the Mid term elections? Well, Clinton delivered: a) stationed the CIA and troops to back them up (by implication) in the mideast forever so that an attack on Israel will contitute an attack on US. b) gave Netanyahu the wink to expand settlements again, which he announced he would do within ten days of the election; 3) tried to ramp up another frenzy against Iraq -- but too much talk about wag the dog and general opposition to the bloodthirsty bombing intentions -- again forced a postponement of the Netanyahu faction's attempt to manipulate the US into attacking Iraq. Act VIII; Reciprocation: Clinton's servile performance is rewarded by thoroughly unchecked and uncheckable computerized eleciton results showing Democratic gains ( how absurd!), the only time this happened in this cen tury except when the American
Re: [CTRL] Is the media turning on Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 12/14/98 9:51:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All: Has anyone besides myself noticed a slight--but nonetheless palpable--change in the media's approach to covering the Clinton impeachment proceedings? I could be wrong, but I am beginning to detect a certain "hostile abandonment" concerning Clinton's plight. My only qualification for being able to discern any difference is that I have somewhat religiously watched the major networks' coverage of the "crisis in the White house" almost since its beginning. This certainly lends credence to those conspiracy theorists out there (myself included) who believe that Clinton has finally fallen out of favor among the true "body politic." Comments? Edward Yes. I think it's started the day he was elected the first time. I've wondered about it myself. Prudy DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Is the media turning on Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 12/14/98 9:51:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has anyone besides myself noticed a slight--but nonetheless palpable--change in the media's approach to covering the Clinton impeachment proceedings? I could be wrong, but I am beginning to detect a certain "hostile abandonment" concerning Clinton's plight. Your observation surpasses all understanding. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Is the media turning on Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- All: Has anyone besides myself noticed a slight--but nonetheless palpable--change in the media's approach to covering the Clinton impeachment proceedings? I could be wrong, but I am beginning to detect a certain "hostile abandonment" concerning Clinton's plight. My only qualification for being able to discern any difference is that I have somewhat religiously watched the major networks' coverage of the "crisis in the White house" almost since its beginning. This certainly lends credence to those conspiracy theorists out there (myself included) who believe that Clinton has finally fallen out of favor among the true "body politic." Comments? Edward []===[] "Go for goats, Bill. They don't talk." Yasser Arafat http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html Talk to the planet. Subscribe to Reality Pump: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2 []===[] DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Is the media turning on Clinton?
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 12/14/98 9:51:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All: Has anyone besides myself noticed a slight--but nonetheless palpable--change in the media's approach to covering the Clinton impeachment proceedings? I could be wrong, but I am beginning to detect a certain "hostile abandonment" concerning Clinton's plight. Now you've got me really confused. Others had me convinced that they hated him all along. Jim DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
