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
