[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
Terry is wrong again. That guy who wrote the article for Spectator
magazine that first mentioned a woman named "Paula" gave a very sincere
apology to Clinton and to the public because he fell for the right wing
conspirators' line of bull and helped them in a planned attack to destroy
Clinton. So some journalists DO apologize.
Bill
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 12:22:26 -0700 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Terry:
>
>I have not heard of any journalists apologize for anything that they
>have said, but I have heard a lot of journalists lately say that
>perhaps
>they are going too far especially on the Clinton matters. I have
>heard
>a few in fact state that they have been getting a lot of response from
>the public and should back down on this story. So maybe the whole
>thing
>lies with what the public will and will not accept from these
>journalists, not with the journalists alone.
>
>This is especially true in the reporting of stories from "sources".
>In
>fact Nightline did a whole segment on "sources" and who they are,
>trying
>to calm this matter down.
>
>If you look at the amount of news stories that are coming out now
>(regarding Clinton), and what was coming out I think you will see
>there
>is a lot less of it, and not all of it is because the story is old,
>IMO.
>
>The public is what rules what the reporters, etc will and will not put
>out there. As long as we are willing to read it, and keep asking for
>more they are going to go after it. That became quite evident in the
>Simpson case. The public wouldn't stand for autopsy photos of Nicole
>being published, but wanted that trial in all of it's glory every day.
>
>And we got both. The paper with the autopsy photos were taken out of
>the stores, and the trial was on every channel 24 hours a day almost.
>I
>don't blame reputable journalists for reporting what the public wants,
>and I don't blame them for bringing in people or evidence that they
>feel
>that the public wants. It is up to us to tell them what we will and
>will not pay for.
>
>I didn't know that Ms. Bowman tried to commit suicide. But I can see
>where something like what she went through could cause a person to do
>this sort of thing. I blame that more on the attorney's that
>represented Smith than the reporters though. The reporters had to
>have
>gotten their information from someone. Knowing what Bailey did now in
>the Simpson case (leaking information to the New Yorker about Fuhrman)
>and how Black handled the Albert case, it leaves room to speculate, if
>nothing else.
>
>Legit reporters are going to go after anything that they feel the
>public
>wants, but if the public doesn't want it they aren't going to be
>interested. They want to sell papers, and aren't going to waste their
>time on things that won't sell them.
>
>I don't know enough about Lizzie Borden to say anything about that
>case,
>just that she was found innocent of her parents deaths, and died a
>recluse because the public felt otherwise. Sort of like another story
>that was going on not too long ago.
>
>The book about Nixon, could very well be true, and then again not.
>Obviously it wasn't something that was well known, if at all, up until
>now, so how can it be proven that he did such a thing. Patricia isn't
>alive to say one way or the other. As for helping battered women, how
>can that be. I doubt that this book was written to help battered
>women
>anyway.
>
>I am not defending Nixon. My family had some personal dealings with
>this man, and he was everything that his reputation said he was, and a
>few others. I did not like him, and still don't. He was a crook,
>IMO.
>
>There are so many rumors about Kennedy that it will never be known
>what
>is true and was isn't. I have read some books that were written about
>the whole family and it certainly isn't any secret that everyone of
>the
>men in that family have sexual problems, and most drinking problems.
>But whether he was sleeping with the maid at the time he was suppose
>to
>be taking care of the country is something that will never really be
>known.
>
>How do we know that Kennedy asked the mob to make a hit on Castro?
>That
>is another story that there is no proof of. I doubt that the mob
>would
>tell anyone, although maybe one of the hit guys did, I dunno. But it
>still is an unfounded story.
>
>I do have a question about the war and Kennedy. Kennedy was killed in
>Nov of 1963, the first ground troops were sent into Nam in early 1965.
>
>That is almost 2 years after Kennedy died. My question is this,
>wouldn't it have been Johnson who was responsible for this, not
>Kennedy. Just wondering.
>
>I guess what it comes down to is that we the public build these guys
>up
>and trust them enough to run the country, and then take great pride in
>seeing them torn down. Unfortunately it looks like in most cases it
>is
>done after they die, a long time after they die, and there is no one
>around to defend themselves.
>
>I just feel that if stories are going to come out about these people,
>the least that could be done, is to have proof of these things, not
>just
>some reporters word for it, or an unnamed source.
>
>>
>> Hi Sue,
>>
>> >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >I think that we have the right to know the truth about what is
>going on
>> >in the WH in regards to things like Watergate, White Water,
>Vietnam,
>> >Iraq, Bosnia, etc. But when it comes down to the personal lives of
>> >anyone, I don't think so. I certainly don't want anyone to delve
>into
>> >my personal life. But even so, putting that aside, these people
>are
>> >dead. They can't possibly defend themselves. All this does is
>hurt the
>> >survivors. And IMO that is wrong.
>>
>> I doubt many are worried about the feelings of the survivors. The
>feelings
>> of those harmed by journalists are seldom of the slightest concern.
>People
>> have been driven to suicide by reporters. William Kennedy Smith's
>victim,
>> Patricia Bowman, tried to kill herself after her name was revealed
>along
>> with the most intimate details of her life. Her case was destroyed
>long
>> before she got to court by the ridicule to which she was subjected.
>If you
>> heard any journalists saying they were sorry I sure missed it.
>>
>> In a book about Lizzie Borden a writer dug up much new information
>despite
>> the resistance of institutions which still resented the exposure of
>a
>> shameful part of their history. Institutional pride is of far more
>concern
>> than any considerations of personal privacy.
>>
>> People do not hesitate in the slightest to trash those they dislike
>> repeating the grossest and flimsiest rumors as absolute truth while
>> complaining loudly that the most obvious flaws of their heros are
>just
>> unfounded rumors.
>>
>> >I certainly did not approve nor even like Nixon, but even if he had
>beat
>> >Pat, what possible good can it do the country now, or anyone for
>that
>> >matter for it to be brought out now.
>> >
>> >Sue
>>
>> It could be of aid to understanding the man, the position of women,
>and
>> certainly be an aid to battered wives. Understand I haven't made
>the
>> slightest comment on the accusation. I haven't the foggiest notion
>whether
>> it is true or not though many will immediately take up positions on
>it.
>>
>> Does it matter that Kennedy had an affair with a mobster's
>girlfriend?
>> Since Kennedy later made initiatives to try to have the mob perform
>a hit on
>> Castro I would say it did.
>>
>> The myths of Camelot are best revealed for what they are just as the
>myths
>> of Vietnam would best be understood rather than just having the old
>lies
>> repeated. Truman sent the first American soldiers to Vietnam when he
>> supported the French overthrow of Ho Chi Minh's newly established
>republic
>> after the war. Kennedy campaigned for a more active American
>participation
>> (Eisenhower had resisted the demands for a more active American
>> participation by Nixon and John Foster Dulles) and devised the
>Special
>> Forces for combatting guerilla forces with counter-terrorism. The
>war in
>> Vietnam owes its genesis and main impetus to these two men despite
>all the lies.
>>
>> Truman's ignorance combined with Kennedy's impulsive bravado gave us
>the
>> mess that cost so many lives. Maybe if people realized it was the
>personal
>> failings of the men most responsible that gave us the Vietnam War,
>they
>> would be less casual about those they choose to represent them.
>> Intelligence and knowledge have long been a particular handicap to
>gaining
>> elective office.
>> Best, Terry
>>
>> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's
>Dictionary
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
>--
>Two rules in life:
>
>1. Don't tell people everything you know.
>2.
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
