# Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123 "2001-10-28T17:41:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/141 "2001-10-29T21:20:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > No, **IzzyR**. **december** has assumed that the general population has reached the same conclusion as me. > Read his response to my first post in this thread - I pointed out that _Clintonistas_ wouldn’t like these guys anyway, with or without Zippergate, and **december** stated that the demonization of these people was occurring in the “general population.” Hmm, you’re right. (I think he would have been better off using my approach.) ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/142 "2001-10-29T21:24:10Z")
I figure that I will be accused of dead horse flogging yet again, but I just have to make a few points. 1. Re: Clinton’s Jones depo- the dictionary definition of sex doesn’t matter, nor does my definition, nor does yours-in the depo, the definition of sex was spelled out and limited. It was essentially this: If Clinton touched ML’s genitals or other erogenous parts, it was sex. It said nothing about _her_ touching _his_ naughty bits. Further, there had been a second paragragh discussing the use of “objects” for stimulation, but that paragraph was struck. Thus the question is not “is a blowjob sex,” but rather “did Clinton do anyting that the paragraph defining sex in this deposition mentions?” Absent proof that he did do one of the things in the the clause, it’s difficult (at least for us strict constructionists) to say he lied under oath. 2. Materiality. Plaintiff was trying to show that Clinton’s alleged action in the complaint would not have been out of character for him by showing a “pattern of behavior.” When the Judge threw the case out, however, her decision was based on the fact that the only damage that Paula Jones could show was that she did not get flowers one secretary’s day. All of her allegations of missed promotions and raises, etc., that she had sworn to, and which were therefore obviously very material to the case, were shown to be lies. The Judge did not question whether Clinton had made the alleged demand in the alleged fashion, but threw the case out because with no damage stemming from Jones’ alleged refusal, the demand was only “boorishness” and not harrassment. If the only relevance that testimony about ML had went to whether Clinton might have done the foul deed that Jones alleged, and the Judge said that whether Clinton did it was irrelevant to the case, then the testimony should not have been allowed in the first place, and certainly is immaterial. 3. The Grand Jury Testimony, which can be found here: [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm). Remember, the House voted to impeach Clinton on this, and not the Jones deposition. The Starr report called this perjury. In this testimony, Clinton said this: “\*\*When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. \*\*” Later in the testimony he discusses why he believes that oral sex performed on him by Monica is not included in the definition of sexual relations from the Jones definition. He also discusses why his use of “objects” on Monica is not covered, since the paragraph that mentioned them was struck. Anyone reading the Grand Jury Testimony will get a complete picture of what Clinton and Lewinsky did. I do not see how this could be called perjury, unless it is claimed that they did things beyond this (fucked, for instance), and to my knowledge the Starr report does not claim that. Where’s the perjury? Read the transcripts and a very different picture emerges. JDM ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/143 "2001-10-29T21:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\*I’d like a retraction of the “counterbalancing” claim, if you please. \*\* Just as you’d like to pretend you never suggested any such thing. But I can’t deny your words any more than you can. The only relation I can see between this wrangle and the OP is its vague similarity to the Clintonian shuffle over what the meaning of “is” is. What it’s more reminiscent of is the passage in Steven King’s _The Shining_ where the ghosts of the Overlook Hotel are coming to life, and various scenes from the hotel’s history are playing out simultaneously like bad time exposures. While this exchange is going on in one dimension, there’s a rehash of the Bad Clinton/Good Clinton debate playing in another dimension. Since you’re not ready or willing to back up your “corporate media” thesis, go have fun in the Second Dimension. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/144 "2001-10-29T21:25:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*Starr _claims_ Judge Johnson ruled in his favor. “The ruling has not been made public.” > > Sua, you don’t actually disbelieve Starr, do you? If Starr had told such a blatant lie, wouldn’t you think that he’d have been exposed by now? And, Starr isn’t a liar. AFAIK he hasn’t been shown to have lied (despite unproved and refuted allegations to the contrary.) Not saying he’s a liar. Court decisions almost always have good points and bad points for each side. The sides inevitably play up the good points and play down the bad points. Remember the appellate decision in Microsoft? The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision that Microsoft was a monopolist that had abused its position. The court also held that the district judge had acted inappropriately, and remanded to a different judge for further proceedings on the appropriate remedy. Microsoft labelled the decision as a victory. Spin, baby. In this case, if Starr had been let off with an admonishment, it would be quite common for a person in Starr’s position to label that a “ruling in his favor.” After all, nothing bad happened to him. Neither of us should guess what Judge Johnson’s ruling was until we can read the ruling. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > As for the rest, you still have your huge problem with proof. > > Perhaps my case isn’t totally watertight for a court of law. Still, I can point to a big difference between the treatment of Republicans and Democrats. E.g., Barney Skolnik, Richard Ben Veniste, Sam Ervin, Archibald Cox, and the Washington Post all helped get the goods on Nixon and Agnew. They were not demonized. Their opposite numbers were demonized – i.e., those who helped to uncover the Clinton perjury scandal and Dan Rostenkowski and the House Post Office scandal. I’ll second **Gadarene** - who the hell was “demonized” as a result of the House Post Office scandal? Anyway, we are back to the original question - who do you think is doing the demonizing? If it is _Clintonistas_, you still have the problem that the Clintonistas would (and did) demonize these guys before Zippergate. And, of course, Nixon partisans _did_ demonize the Watergate investigators. Pat Buchanan springs to mind. If you are talking about the general population as being the demonizers, then you still have the problem of the dividing line between demonization and judgment. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/145 "2001-10-29T21:28:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > \*\ ***december:** The people investigating Dan Rostenkowski were demonized? Sim **Cite** y? I certainly don’t remember anything like that. > > > > And when in the hell was there any demonization regarding the [Post Office scandal](http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/govern/em375.html), anyway? (Note the source of that link, mind you.) \*\* > > Two words: > > Newt Gingrich \*\* Are you joking? You’re suggesting that to the extent Gingrich was demonized, it was (by implication) in large part for his investigations of Rostenkowski and the House Post Office? I seem to recall an old saying about correlation, and how it doesn’t imply causation. Maybe that’s just me. If you’re saying that Gingrich’s reputation as a bomb-thrower was based unfairly on these episodes, perhaps you’ve forgotten about his claim that one-fourth of White House staff were drug users or his overblown screed (picked up by major media) about House bank overdrafts. Perhaps you ought to look into his campaign to topple Jim Wright as Speaker of the House, an event that is generally regarded as the inception of the contemporary cycle of Congressional scandal politics? Perhaps you ought to read [The Ambition and the Power](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670819247/qid=1004390774/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_8_2/107-8050779-8366957). Newt Gingrich, demonized because of the House Post Office Scandal? Please. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/146 "2001-10-29T21:35:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > \*\ ***december:** The people investigating Dan Rostenkowski were demonized? Sim **Cite** y? I certainly don’t remember anything like that. > > > > And when in the hell was there any demonization regarding the [Post Office scandal](http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/govern/em375.html), anyway? (Note the source of that link, mind you.) \*\* > > Two words: > > Newt Gingrich \*\* You are referring to the same Newt Gingrich who very soon thereafter became Speaker of the House of Representatives, right? If “demonization” results (pretty directly) in my achieving the job I dreamed about since I was a child, then please demonize me, baby. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/147 "2001-10-29T21:52:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > I’d like a retraction of the “counterbalancing” claim, if you please. > > Just as you’d like to pretend you never suggested any such thing. But I can’t deny your words any more than you can. Okay, I give up–what the hell are you talking about? **What** words? Show me, please, where I state, intimate, or even hint that centrist-liberal social cant in the media is counterbalance, neutralized, justified, or otherwise offset by centrist-conservative social cant–or else go fly your freak flag somewhere else. Here’s a hint, which seems to have pinged off your stubborn skull as a BB might a mailbox: that I think both cants exist _in no way suggests_ a counterbalancing of any kind, nor even any specific normative judgment. I observe a centrist-liberal social cant. I observe a centrist-conservative economic cant. The two have little or nothing to do with one another. > [@](#): > > Since you’re not ready or willing to back up your “corporate media” thesis, go have fun in the Second Dimension. _sigh_ I stated at the outset that I wasn’t looking for a protracted hijack. And I’ve resisted defending the assertions you’ve asked me to defend for the simple fact that I never made them. But I’m more than willing to back up my “corporate media thesis.” Ready? Here we go: Most major media outlets are owned by corporations. Ta da. Really going out on a limb with that one, aren’t I? Me am from Bizarro world if me think that. If you’d like some support for my observation that major media _tends to be_ profit-driven, audience-driven, and access-driven–that is, if you seriously don’t believe those things to be true–then I’d be happy to comply. They’re hardly radical propositions. If you want to debate the existence of a centrist-conservative economic cant, then by all means start a new thread. If I don’t jump immediately into the fray, take a breather, read the Wall Street Journal, and I’m sure I’ll be with you shortly. When, that is, you provide evidence that I think the media’s social center-liberalism balances out its economic center-conservativism, or admit the nonexistence thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/148 "2001-10-29T21:52:20Z")
**Jackmanii** , you are fooling no one with your sophism. > [@](#): > > Your hit counter for substance-less posts for the purpose of protracted argument has just hit 3. > > I look forward to the time when you compile, relate and persuade relative to some topic of GD interest. I should congratulate myself. Keeping pace with you has not been easy. You joined this thread to counter a spurious claim, made by you _and you alone_, that rightward tendencies in the media “counterbalance” leftward tendencies. The posters in question have all repudiated this claim numerous times and have _challenged_ you to demonstrate where and when this claim was ever made. Your Substance-Free hit counter is ticking away. Then you displace the blame to “liberal apologists”: > [@](#): > > And you’re free to overlook clear cut evidence that apologists on the left cite “corporate media bias” as a equilibrating factor when compared to “social issue bias”. No one on this thread made that claim. Nor does anyone but you particularly care what the apologists of the left have to say on this matter. Why did you even see fit to mention it in the first place? And then you have the temerity to continue to accuse **Gadarene** of making an argument that he never made. > [@](#): > > Just as you’d like to pretend you never suggested any such thing. But I can’t deny your words any more than you can. Neither the selections you nor the ones **IzzyR** related suggest in any way, shape, or form support the argument you _wish_ **Gadarene** had made. But you can’t deny his words. So **don’t**. Learn to stick to the level of _logos_. If you are going to debate arguments evidence for which you cannot even produce based on tenuous interpretations of the words of others, well, I think we are going to have to leave _you_ in the second dimension. Or better yet, in the Overlook Hotel. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/149 "2001-10-29T22:09:46Z")
I think this “counterbalancing” thing is getting a bit clearer. **Gadarene** is using the term to mean something that directly offsets - meaning that the media skew to the left on social issues is actually offset by the media skew to the right on economic ones - IOW, that the media is not, _as a practical matter_, as skewed as they might be on either issue, because the two different skews interact and cancel each other out. **Jackmanni** is using it to mean that the media cannot be said to be skewed _overall_ because since it simultaneously skewed in both directions (on different issues) the overall direction is neutral. This was also my understanding of the term, which may be incorrect (I don’t wish to debate this). Gadarene has not said the first, but has said the second. Truce? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/150 "2001-10-29T22:24:02Z")
I’ve said neither, **Izzy**. If anything, the latter opinion is closer to my own–which is that you can’t talk generally about a “liberal media” if the media is not overarchingly liberal. But nothing is being “offset” or “counterbalanced”; that is, just because I think the media tends center-conservative economically doesn’t mean I think it somehow _makes it okay_ for the media to tend center-liberal on social issues, as a “counterbalancing” effect would suggest. I don’t know how I can make “the two cants are not related” more clear than saying that the two cants are not related, which I’ve done. Your call for a truce is premature, I think. Not that I don’t welcome the mediating hand. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/151 "2001-10-29T22:33:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \*If you’re saying that Gingrich’s reputation as a bomb-thrower was based unfairly on these episodes, perhaps you’ve forgotten about his claim that one-fourth of White House staff were drug users This turns out to be an example where Gingrich was essentially correct, but the media didn’t give him a fair shake when Secret Service agents testified to the facts. > [@](#): > > Secret Service agents told a congressional committee last Wednesday that dozens of White House aides had a history of serious drug abuse when they joined the executive branch in 1993. `I would say more than 30 -- more than 40, perhaps -- had drug usage,'' Agent Jeffrey L. Undercoffer testified. `There was some where the drug use was recent… . . I have seen cocaine usage, I have seen hallucinogenic usages, crack usages. I would say those are the big three.’’ [snip] > > At least 21 Clinton staffers were deemed such worrisome security risks that the Secret Service at first refused to grant them permanent White House passes. According to Agent Arnold A. Cole, they were finally cleared only on orders from the White House counsel – and only after agreeing to a regimen of frequent drug tests. [snip] > > Now, 19 months later, it turns out that Gingrich was basically telling the truth and Panetta was lying through his teeth. Shouldn’t last week’s stories have so noted? It isn’t every day that Secret Service agents give evidence under oath of a widespread history of ``cocaine usage . . . hallucinogenic usages, crack usages’’ among White House employees. Did no reporter remember how Gingrich had been vilified when he raised the subject a year and a half earlier? [snip] > > Apparently not. A search of the giant Nexis database turns up hundreds of stories reporting the new White House/drugs revelations. Of those hundreds, exactly zero pointed out that Gingrich – savaged so furiously in 1994 – had now been vindicated. The same number – zero – took the White House chief of staff to task for his deceitfulness. [snip] > > Meanwhile, at least nine of those former crack-smokers and hallucinogen-droppers are still working in the White House. Press Secretary Mike McCurry declines to reveal who they are, what they do, or why they were hired over the Secret Service’s objections. But not to worry, he says; they haven’t failed a drug test since joining the Clinton administration. See [http://www.bigeye.com/jj072396.htm](http://www.bigeye.com/jj072396.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/152 "2001-10-29T22:38:57Z")
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Newt taken to task for something he said reguarding Tip O’Neill, when the later was SOTH? Supposedly when C-SPAN first came out? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/153 "2001-10-29T22:39:13Z")
Gadarene, you’re losing me again. What is the difference between “the media cannot be said to be skewed overall because since it simultaneously skewed in both directions” (my language) and “you can’t talk generally about a “liberal media” if the media is not overarchingly liberal” (yours)? No one said (as far as I remember ) that it “somehow makes it okay”. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/154 "2001-10-29T22:49:21Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* \*\* > [@](#): > > Okay, I give up–what the hell are you talking about?\*\* Gadarene, didn’t your momma ever tell you not to pick at your scabs, for fear they’d get all infected and nasty? But for purposes of argument I’ll take you at your word and that you don’t realize what it is you’re suggesting. Your screed on the State of Media on page 1 of this thread suggests that media coverage of social issues has some degree of liberal tilt, and that there is some kind of tilt toward conservatives on the economic front. You then state that neither side is happy with the degree of favoritism it receives. It seems obvious to me that you are arguing that neither side gets any net benefit from media bias, that as a practical matter any “social issue” bias is _counterbalanced_ by an “economics” bias. Izzy dug up this statement of yours from another thread: “I think we should define our terms. What’s involved in taking a “liberal” stance? Being generally pro-choice? Yes, the media are generally pro-choice. Being generally pro-gun control? Yes, the media are generally pro-gun control. Being abstractly (but not practically) pro-environment? Yes, the media generally fits that, as well. What else? What about economic issues? What about issues that affect their advertising stable rather than their viewership? Wealth disparity, corporate malfeasance, free trade, globalization…interests entrenched in today’s institutions. I’d argue that these are more pertinent.” So. Economic issues “are more pertinent” than “social issues”. You suggest (not to mention intimate and imply) in this thread that conservatives benefit from a center-right tilting on economic issues. Therefore, if I’ve misstated your position in any way, it’s to the extent that you think there’s a net _right-wing_ media bias. And that’s even goofier than what I taxed you with previously. \*\* > [@](#): > > But I’m more than willing to back up my “corporate media thesis.” Ready? Here we go: Most major media outlets are owned by corporations. Ta da.\*\* That’s your concrete evidence? The major media are owned by corporations, Sinister Denizens Of The Right, and that proves a corporate media bias in reporting? For starters, you have [difficult ground to plow](http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/06/19/opinion/CHAREN19.htm) in implicating corporations in general as devotees of a Right Wing New World Order. Then you have to develop convincing evidence that the corporations that own major media outlets have a similar agenda. Following that, you have to trace an influence from above that overrides the natural political sympathies of news editors and reporters. And then you’ll need to show us how conservatives benefit from such a tilt more than liberals. You have shown _ **none** _ of this. In the absence of evidence\*, you’ve more than outdone any of **december’s** conspiracy theories. \*And no, I’m not going to do your research into the perfidies of the Wall Street Journal for you. And even in the case of that august publication, you’ll find plenty of argument about your implication that the WSJ is a hotbed of bias in its news coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/155 "2001-10-29T22:57:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Gadarene, you’re losing me again. What is the difference between “the media cannot be said to be skewed overall because since it simultaneously skewed in both directions” (my language) and “you can’t talk generally about a “liberal media” if the media is not overarchingly liberal” (yours)? No one said (as far as I remember ) that it “somehow makes it okay”. There’s no real substantive difference between these two statements. It’s just that you felt **Jackmanii** was asserting that first statement, rather than me. Here’s what you said: > [@](#): > > I think this “counterbalancing” thing is getting a bit clearer. Gadarene is using the term to mean something that directly offsets - meaning that the media skew to the left on social issues is actually offset by the media skew to the right on economic ones - IOW, that the media is not, as a practical matter, as skewed as they might be on either issue, because the two different skews interact and cancel each other out. Jackmanni is using it to mean that the media cannot be said to be skewed overall because since it simultaneously skewed in both directions (on different issues) the overall direction is neutral. This was also my understanding of the term, which may be incorrect (I don’t wish to debate this). Here’s my response: > [@](#): > > I’ve said neither, Izzy. If anything, the latter opinion is closer to my own–which is that you can’t talk generally about a “liberal media” if the media is not overarchingly liberal. But nothing is being “offset” or “counterbalanced”; that is, just because I think the media tends center-conservative economically doesn’t mean I think it somehow makes it okay for the media to tend center-liberal on social issues, as a “counterbalancing” effect would suggest. I can amend “closer to my own” to “much closer to my own,” if you like. I hesitate to subscribe wholeheartedly to someone else’s paraphrase of my beliefs. And it seems to me that **Jackmanii’s** position re: “counterbalancing” is that I do, in fact, think that competing biases in both issues somehow “makes it okay.” If I’m making an incorrect inference into **Jack’s** contention, I apologize; I’m just clarifying (for the umpteenth time) that I don’t believe the two sets of cants balance each other out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/156 "2001-10-29T23:18:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Newt taken to task for something he said reguarding Tip O’Neill, when the later was SOTH? Supposedly when C-SPAN first came out? An old practice of the House of Representatives was the “Five Minutes”, in which any member of Congress could stand up and speak at the podium on any topic of their choosing for five minutes. This wasn’t really used much until C-Span came along and began filming Congress, and then suddenly lots of young Congresspersons jumped at the chance for five minutes of free airtime. Gingrich had a nasty routine- he would stand at the podium and attack another Congressperson, throwing out a charge and then standing back and “waiting” for a reply. Given that most of Congress didn’t even bother to show up for other peoples’ “Five Minutes”, Gingrich could throw out a charge with no worry about any reply, but because the camera was focused solely upon him, the average viewer got the impression that the charge was _so_ true that the accused couldn’t even come up with a good reply. Tip O’Neill, as Speaker of the House, was so disgusted by this that he went to one of the cameramen and told him to pan across the room, which he did, revealing that Gingrich was talking to a nearly empty room. Gingrich stopped the practice after that. This is all contained in Tip O’Neill’s “Man Of The House”, a book I _highly_ recommend to all those interested in politics and good reads. There’s a little too much hagiography of Kennedy in it IMO, but O’Neill was an incredible story teller with great stories, and the book is just a great view at the realities of politics from 1960 to 1985. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/157 "2001-10-29T23:27:32Z")
Ah…now I remember! Thanks. I read about that in a recent biography of O’Neill, but couldn’t remember what happened. (IIRC, afterwards, Gingrich basically mouthed off to the Tipster, who pretty much considered him a young "whippersnapper). Thanks-I’ll have to check out the book which you speak of. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/158 "2001-10-29T23:40:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > Your screed on the State of Media on page 1 of this thread suggests that media coverage of social issues has some degree of liberal tilt, and that there is some kind of tilt toward conservatives on the economic front. First, it wasn’t a screed. When I write a screed, you’ll know it. Second, this is what I said in my original post: > [@](#): > > The mainstream media tends to be: > [list=a] > [li]profit-driven[/li][li]access-driven[/li][li]audience-driven[/li][li]establishmentarian–see (a) and (b)[/li][li]secular[/li][li]socially centrist-liberal–see © and (e)[/li][li]economically centrist-conservative–see (a), (b), ©, and (d)[/li][li]even in issues (f) and (g), neither as whole-heartedly liberal as liberals would like nor as whole-heartedly conservative as conservatives would like[/li][/list] > > Not only are you persistently ignoring that niggling little word “centrist,” but you are (incorrectly, I think) equating “tendency” with “tilt.” Let me be clear: I am very careful in my charges of bias. I do not believe that there is a social left-wing bias or an economic right-wing bias in the major news media. To me, bias connotes an intentional slanting of coverage. Rather, I believe that the media’s baseline for social and economic issues (given cultural and structural factors, including A, B, C, D, and E above) _tend to be shaped by_ a general centrist-liberal perspective in the former and a general centrist-conservative perspective in the latter. No “tilt” involved. This is complex stuff, **Jack**. You can’t just yell “bias!” and “no bias!” back and forth like hyper-literate fourth-graders during recess. > > > [@](#): > > > > You then state that neither side is happy with the degree of favoritism it receives. It seems obvious to me that you are arguing that neither side gets any net benefit from media bias, that as a practical matter any “social issue” bias is _counterbalanced_ by an “economics” bias. > > Seems obvious to you, huh? Well, it’s an incorrect conclusion. I say nothing– **nothing** –about net benefit or lack thereof. I say, in fact, just what I mean, and it was meant mostly tongue-in-cheek: partisan liberals, being partisan liberals, probably think the social coverage ain’t liberal enough; partisan conservatives, being partisan conservatives, probably think the economic coverage ain’t conservative enough. It was, I say, I say, a little _joke_, son. Hell, I’m sure there are leftists out there that decry the bland middling moderate pablum of _The Nation_, just as there are probably right-wingers who think that _The National Review_ is too damn soft on pinkos and abortionists. (Yes, neither of thos are mainstream media outlets; that’s my point.) The gist of H up there–and it may have been hamhanded, I’ll admit–is that liberals and conservatives aren’t good judges of what’s too liberal and too conservative: like I said to **december** , the further left (or right) you go, the more right (or left) everyone else seems to you. > > So no, I wasn’t arguing that “as a practical matter” anything counterbalances _anything_, and I’ll thank you to keep your imputations to yourself. Plain meaning–heard of it? > > > [@](#): > > > > Izzy dug up this statement of yours from another thread: > > > > “I think we should define our terms. What’s involved in taking a “liberal” stance? Being generally pro-choice? Yes, the media are generally pro-choice. Being generally pro-gun control? Yes, the media are generally pro-gun control. Being abstractly (but not practically) pro-environment? Yes, the media generally fits that, as well. What else? What about economic issues? What about issues that affect their advertising stable rather than their viewership? Wealth disparity, corporate malfeasance, free trade, globalization…interests entrenched in today’s institutions. I’d argue that these are more pertinent.” > > > > So. Economic issues “are more pertinent” than “social issues”. You suggest (not to mention intimate and imply) in this thread that conservatives benefit from a center-right tilting on economic issues. > > Point number one: that thread must be, what, a year or so old? Frankly, I wouldn’t paint those issues in such stark terms today. Point number two: even if those did reflect a full and accurate summation of my take on the mainstream media–and I prefer the rubric I made yesterday, thanks–they’ve got (as you admit below) precisely squat to do with any kind of “counterbalancing” act. So _as_ suggestions, intimations, or implications, they’re pretty darn irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That is, you entered this thread specifically to call attention to my laughable charge that economic media bias to the right “somewhat equalizes matters”–a direct quote from you, **Jack** –even given a social media bias to the left. Trouble is, I never said anything remotely like that. And you’re gonna be chasing your tail for days unless you figure that out. > > > [@](#): > > > > Therefore, if I’ve misstated your position in any way, it’s to the extent that you think there’s a net _right-wing_ media bias. And that’s even goofier than what I taxed you with previously. > > I don’t think there’s a net right-wing bias. I don’t think there’s a net left-wing bias. I don’t think there’s a net bias of any sort, except to the extent–and again, I think it’s a baseline tendency–that all American major media outlets are American major media outlets, and thus populated by the type of Americans you’d expect to find in American major media outlets and run pretty much the way you’d expect American major media outlets to be run. Is that a tautology? You betcha. Because I’m unwilling to make the sort of broadsides and generalizations you seem to require of me. Sorry. > > To quantify “net bias” over wildly varying areas of news and coverage is just comparing apples and oranges. Or rather, tree-huggers and stockholders. Even assuming that a bias exists, rather than a (let’s say) structural frame of reference. > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > But I’m more than willing to back up my “corporate media thesis.” Ready? Here we go: Most major media outlets are owned by corporations. Ta da.\*\* > > That’s your concrete evidence? The major media are owned by corporations, Sinister Denizens Of The Right, and that proves a corporate media bias in reporting? For starters, you have [difficult ground to plow](http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/06/19/opinion/CHAREN19.htm) in implicating corporations in general as devotees of a Right Wing New World Order. Then you have to develop convincing evidence that the corporations that own major media outlets have a similar agenda. Following that, you have to trace an influence from above that overrides the natural political sympathies of news editors and reporters. And then you’ll need to show us how conservatives benefit from such a tilt more than liberals. No, I don’t need to do any of that. Because I’m not making any of those claims. You asked me to defend my “corporate media” thesis. To the extent that I possess one today, you’ve been handed it in full. I said nothing about sinister denizens, or new world orders, or agendas, or benefits at all. It’s not a debate I’m engaging. Methinks you’re coloring your putative opponents arguments a little to strenuously. Tone down the scare speech characterizations, and people will take you more seriously, 'kay? > [@](#): > > You have shown _ **none** _ of this. Nor have I posited any of it. > [@](#): > > \*And no, I’m not going to do your research into the perfidies of the Wall Street Journal for you. And even in the case of that august publication, you’ll find plenty of argument about your implication that the WSJ is a hotbed of bias in its news coverage. Didn’t ask you to. If you’re looking for generally centrist-conservative economic coverage, though, the Wall Street Journal’s a good place to start. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Nobody’s saying anything about bias or perfidy. Well, you are–I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/159 "2001-10-30T00:19:51Z")
Oh, I see, Gadarene. You’ve really been speaking all along about a media “perspective”, or “tendency” or… [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* \*\* > [@](#): > > …a (let’s say) structural frame of reference.\*\* But oh no, not “bias”. That would be dreadfully misrepresenting your views.\*\* > [@](#): > > Plain meaning–heard of it?\*\* Yes, I have. I just haven’t been seeing it from you. You were asked to back up your conclusions with fact. You instead decide belatedly that you don’t like the sound of your own statements on the issue, in effect saying awww shucks, I wasn’t _serious_:\*\* > [@](#): > > It was, I say, I say, a little _joke_, son.\*\* Do us a favor. The next time you don’t want to take the trouble to support one of your “theses”, announce beforehand that’s it’s a joke. That way we won’t mistake your subsequent contortions for a cop-out. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123/160 "2001-10-30T00:45:07Z")
It’s funny, 'cause I actually _did_ think you were deeper than this. “Bias!” “No bias!” “Bias!” “No bias!” “Bias!” “No bias!” _ad nauseum, fade out_ _laugh_ Whatever, **Jack**. You’re playing with yourself here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-bad-to-expose-democratic-corruption/90123.md?page=9)