Hou Chronicle covering up

0 views
Skip to first unread message

David Crane

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
The Houston Chronicle certainly has been silent on the "first lady
is a congenital liar" comments and rebuttals from Washington. My friends
in San Antonio and New York tell me their newspapers cover both sides of
the flap. We get nothing. Actually, we get an editorial by Anthony Lewis
(whoever the hell he is) telling us that the media have bought D'Amato's
stories "hook, line, and sinker". Not one of the "right-wing" columnists
who are debating the veracity of the first lady is even carried in the
Chronicle. Nor have I seen any report of Bill's threat to punch them in
the nose, or Hillary's complaint that "congenital" reflects badly on her
parents. She even "offered" to move to the North Pole! Now THAT'S news!

Are we not intelligent enough to get this kind of information? Here we are
in the middle of the biggest name-calling match in recent memory and the
Chronicle doesn't see fit to lower themselves to report on it. Ain't that
a hoot? And to think, I would never have known they were still such a bad
newspaper if I had not accepted their 1/2 price offer a few months ago.
That offer expires at the end of January, and so does my subscription to
this cover-up bird-cage liner.

Keith Veseleny

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) wrote:

David,

I tend to disagree with you. To me what you have stated isn't real
news, but headlines for a tabloid. From a real newspaper, I want real
NEWS.

Keith


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith R. Veseleny vcc...@comspace.com Houston, Texas
The largest source of Commercial Real Estate Information on the Internet
http://www.comspace.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


David Crane

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
Keith Veseleny (vcc...@comspace.com) wrote:
: David,

: I tend to disagree with you. To me what you have stated isn't real
: news, but headlines for a tabloid. From a real newspaper, I want real
: NEWS.

Precisely. Not their opinion of what constitutes news, just NEWS,
uncensored and uncommented on. Editorial bias beyond the editorial page
is unavoidable, but when it gets so extreme that Houstonians have to get
their news from television, the Chronicle has completely failed its
responsibility.

Tabloid? That's absurd. Suddenly certain comments of the president and
the first lady are only fit for tabloids? Nothing could be farther from
the truth. It's a coverup of silence. The Chronicle, and apparently some
other people in Houston, want to call certain news "irrelevant", or "only
fit for tabloids". That's censorship of the worst kind. People who
accept it are blinded by their religion-like political convictions. It
was NEWS when Gingrich's comments aboard Air Force One were distorted by
the spin doctors of the White House, wasn't it? Why is this flap suddenly
not news?? I will be the judge of what I want to read and what I do not
want to read. I can only make that judgement if it's all there somewhere.
The Chronicle now has a monopoly in Houston and an extra responsibility to
work for more complete coverage. Instead, they have doubled their ads
with no noticible increase in editorial content. In fact, it's getting
difficult to FIND the editorial content buried among the ads once you get
past page one. Profits are wonderful but this is ridiculous. Some of the
profit increase should be spent improving the newspaper. Houston deserves
better.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
In article <4dhp2l$m...@crl12.crl.com>, David Crane <dcr...@crl.com> wrote:
>Are we not intelligent enough to get this kind of information? Here we are
>in the middle of the biggest name-calling match in recent memory and the
>Chronicle doesn't see fit to lower themselves to report on it.

I don't get the Comical and I didn't get the Pest when it existed, but I'm
surprised... the Comical has always seemed to be rather on the right of
center, leaving the left to the Pest...

(as for the politics... yes, clinton is a crook, bush was a liar, and reagan
didn't live close enough to reality to know whether he was lying or not...
the only president I can remember worth a damn was carter and he was pretty
ineffectual... what do you expect when the only qualifications for getting
the job are to convincingly read a speech someone else has written?)

Mike Mashburn

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) wrote:
>The Houston Chronicle certainly has been silent on the "first lady
>is a congenital liar" comments and rebuttals from Washington. My friends
>in San Antonio and New York tell me their newspapers cover both sides of
>the flap. We get nothing. Actually, we get an editorial by Anthony Lewis
>(whoever the hell he is) telling us that the media have bought D'Amato's
>stories "hook, line, and sinker". Not one of the "right-wing" columnists
>who are debating the veracity of the first lady is even carried in the
>Chronicle.

Much as it pains me to even *appear* to be defending the elitist
dweebs at the Houston Comical it seems to me that they did publish
"right-winger" William Safire's orignial column- which is where the
"congenital liar" accusation came from. They also carry Safire's
regular column "On language", which this past Sunday had some
particularly interesting observations titled "'Extremist' is political
'word du jour'".

None of which changes the fact that the Comical's editiorial stance,
which regularly seeps over into it's "hard news" reporting, is firmly
directed toward maintaining the liberal-welfare-mommie-state-
status quo.


Dwight Silverman

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) wrote:
>The Houston Chronicle certainly has been silent on the "first lady
>is a congenital liar" comments and rebuttals from Washington. My friends
>in San Antonio and New York tell me their newspapers cover both sides of
>the flap. We get nothing. Actually, we get an editorial by Anthony Lewis
>(whoever the hell he is) telling us that the media have bought D'Amato's
>stories "hook, line, and sinker". Not one of the "right-wing" columnists
>who are debating the veracity of the first lady is even carried in the
>Chronicle. Nor have I seen any report of Bill's threat to punch them in
>the nose, or Hillary's complaint that "congenital" reflects badly on her
>parents. She even "offered" to move to the North Pole! Now THAT'S news!
>

Sorry, David, but you are flat-out wrong. We have run quite a few stories
on this silliness -- you've just not been paying attention.

Using the new search engine at HCI, I typed in the following keywords ...

clinton hillary punch nose safire

It yielded quite a few stories, going back to 1/9. Even Ken Hoffman and Thom
Marshall weighed in on it. And if you insist on reading the extreme
right-wingers, HCI ran Cal Thomas' take on the subject.

Try it yourself. The search engine can be found at:

http://www1.chron.com/interactive/search/

--
+=======================+============================================+
| Dwight Silverman | E-mail: dwight.s...@chron.com |
| The Houston Chronicle | Voice: 713-220-6873 |
| Computer columnist & | Fax: 713-220-7273 |
| Technology reporter | WWW: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~dwights/ |
+=======================+============================================+


Nathaniel McIntosh

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
|In article <4dhp2l$m...@crl12.crl.com> dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) writes:
|
|The Houston Chronicle certainly has been silent on the "first lady
|is a congenital liar" comments and rebuttals from Washington. My friends
|in San Antonio and New York tell me their newspapers cover both sides of
|the flap. We get nothing. Actually, we get an editorial by Anthony Lewis
|(whoever the hell he is) telling us that the media have bought D'Amato's
|stories "hook, line, and sinker". Not one of the "right-wing" columnists
|who are debating the veracity of the first lady is even carried in the
|Chronicle. Nor have I seen any report of Bill's threat to punch them in
|the nose, or Hillary's complaint that "congenital" reflects badly on her
|parents. She even "offered" to move to the North Pole! Now THAT'S news!


Yes, and I've been very disappointed with the Chronicle when it comes
to other important happenings. They've provided absolutely no coverage
on the upcoming hair style changes for the cast of "Friends", and
their lack of articles about Elvis sightings is just unconscionable.

Nat
--
Nathaniel McIntosh | Department of Computer Science
mcin...@cs.rice.edu | Rice University, Mail Stop 41
n.mci...@ieee.org | 6100 South Main, Houston, TX 77005 USA

Robbie Westmoreland

unread,
Jan 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/17/96
to
In article <4dj1ou$i...@crl8.crl.com>, David Crane <dcr...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>Precisely. Not their opinion of what constitutes news, just NEWS,
>uncensored and uncommented on.

1. You've got a seriously warped view of what "censorship" is. A
newspaper has no duty to print anything and everything that comes
their way. I didn't tell you about the latest mud-slinging in
Washington either - was I censoring?

2. A newspaper isn't going to print every occurrance anywhere in
the world. They're going to print those things that are considered
of interest and/or importance to their readers. A newspaper is in
the business of selling advertising space, and relies not on its
volume of news but on the interest value of its news. If certain
limits or editorial slants are increasing circulation and selling
papers, then the newspaper is going to maintain them.

3. As Dwight pointed out, the whole mudslinging match WAS covered
in precisely the places it should have been covered: in commentaries
from people ranging from Safire and Thomas to Hofman and Lewis (a
nationally respected commentator, btw, leagues more intelligent than
the lately-missing Molly Ivins). So there hasn't been a headline of
"Columnist Calls Hillary Names - Bill Threatens To Send Peacekeepers"
Admittedly, the Post would have run it, with a full color picture of
Bill, but the Post was more sensationalistic than Tim magazine.

>Tabloid? That's absurd. Suddenly certain comments of the president and
>the first lady are only fit for tabloids?

Um... why is this surprising? Are you trying to convince us that you
actually like and respect the president and first lady? Or that columnist
and commentator name-calling are newsworthy?

Nothing could be farther from
>the truth. It's a coverup of silence.

Aha! A conspiracy! The stories are covered up, just like the black
helicoptors and the UN invasion plans! When our way of life has been
destroyed by the commie mutant traitors, the Chronicle will no doubt
still blithely be going along reporting things that actually happen
and influence our lives! The bastards. Where are the important things?
Stuff about how JFK was really killed by Hillary! That's right! The
first lady was on the grassy knoll with a Mauser! Film at 11!

>People who
>accept it are blinded by their religion-like political convictions.

Ditto!

>It was NEWS when Gingrich's comments aboard Air Force One were distorted by
>the spin doctors of the White House, wasn't it?

Er, those comments were considered relevant because the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT
SHUT DOWN CONTINUED, AND THE COURTS ALMOST RAN COMPLETELY OUT OF MONEY,
REQUIRING THEM TO RELEASE ACTUAL CRIMINALS ONTO YOUR STREETS.
Granted, the actual causes of the shutdown were larger than those comments,
but a White House comment along the lines of "The Government is shut down
because..." is MUCH more important than one like "I'm gonna punch D'Amato
in the nose if he doesn't stop calling my wife names." Did the Chronicle
cover Mama Gingrich's comments? (honest question, btw)

>I will be the judge of what I want to read and what I do not
>want to read.

Ahem. Not to put too fine a point on it...

>The Chronicle now has a monopoly in Houston and an extra responsibility to
>work for more complete coverage. Instead, they have doubled their ads
>with no noticible increase in editorial content.

There are other papers in town. They'd have larger circulation if the
people who complained about the Chronicle bought them.
Ads are the only thing that keep a paper afloat. With the paper shortage
putting enormous cost pressure on newpapers, it's not surprising that
they're conceding more space to ads.
Although I haven't noticed it that much - there were a lot of ads in the
A section long before the Post went bust.

>Houston deserves better.

Clearly not, since no one is trying to supply that "better."
A city only "deserves" more than one newspaper if both of those newspapers
can realistically survive.

Hey, maybe we can take all the money we're going to save now that the
Republicans control Congress and everything is smooth sailing and put
it into government-supported newspapers! No ads, just the material
that a political appointee thinks is relevant and important!
--
Robbie Westmoreland, Star-bellied Geek rob...@phoenix.net
http://www.phoenix.net/~robbiew/ rob...@txs.uscourts.gov
"Fear is the lock, and laughter the key to your heart." - CSNY
Those aren't opinions, they're Categorical Imperatives

Wayne Bostow

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to

>A city only "deserves" more than one newspaper if both of those newspapers
can realistically survive.

Well now there's blame the victim if I ever heard it. Houston certainly
is, was and always has been able to support two newspapers. What we
couldn't support was $500 million of debt to pay off plus color presses
and attempts to compete with USA Today instead of providing us with
real local news and editorial content. If anybody mentions the cost
of "newsprint" again, I hope you're far enough away so as not to hear
me screaming!

Still, the Post could have fetched 50-80 million, and when you REALLY
think about it, that's a LOT of money, and been produced, but it was,
simply, worth more to the Chronicle to get it shut down.

I suspect Microsoft would like to buy Apple and do the same.

Maybe the biggest aspect of Chronicle censorship is that the anti-trust
issues never even get talked about in this town.

--
__________________________________________________________
Wayne Bostow "The HangulMan"
10558 Alcott, Houston, TX 77043 ph. (713)468-6546
wbo...@hounix.org

Dwight Silverman

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
Wayne Bostow wrote:
>
> >A city only "deserves" more than one newspaper if both of those newspapers
> can realistically survive.
>
> Well now there's blame the victim if I ever heard it. Houston certainly
> is, was and always has been able to support two newspapers. What we
> couldn't support was $500 million of debt to pay off plus color presses
> and attempts to compete with USA Today instead of providing us with
> real local news and editorial content. If anybody mentions the cost
> of "newsprint" again, I hope you're far enough away so as not to hear
> me screaming!
>

Fortunately, in cyberspace, no one can hear you scream.

Newsprint is a very real issue ... its costs have gone up dramatically for a
variety of reasons, not the least of which is increased overseas demand. It was
a serious issue at the Post.

I sure wish the Post were still around. Having 2 newspapers is a Good Thing(TM).
But look around the country ... two-newspaper towns are a dying breed. The
economics of big media make it very difficult. Saying Houston can't support 2
newspapers is not "blame the victim" ... it's economic reality.

> Still, the Post could have fetched 50-80 million, and when you REALLY
> think about it, that's a LOT of money, and been produced, but it was,
> simply, worth more to the Chronicle to get it shut down.
>

Several media companies sent suits to the Post with an eye toward buying it, but
all of them came to the same conclusion: It would not be worth it. The Post had
lost too much market share ... its Sunday circulation was much less than our
daily circulation.

Dean Singleton closed the Post and sold the physical assets to Hearst, which
owns the Chronicle. Hearst did *not* buy the Post and then close it. Singleton
made the decision to shut it down.

> I suspect Microsoft would like to buy Apple and do the same.
>

The Justice Dept. would probably have something to say about that. The Justice
Dept., by the way, approved the Post's closure.

> Maybe the biggest aspect of Chronicle censorship is that the anti-trust
> issues never even get talked about in this town.
>

Given that Houstonites have access to nearly a half-dozen local TV channels with
newscasts; dozens of radio stations with newscasts; numerous neighborhood
papers; two "alternative" newsweeklies; USA Today; The Wall Street Journal;
regional distribution of the Dallas Morning News and the New York Times; CNN,
CSPAN and CNBC; plus news services provided by all the major on-line services;
I'm not sure there are any anti-trust issues to discuss. If you're dissatisfied
with Houston's Leading Information Source, you have many other information
sources at your disposal.

Robbie Westmoreland

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <30FF04...@neosoft.com>,

Dwight Silverman <dwi...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>The Justice Dept. would probably have something to say about that. The Justice
>Dept., by the way, approved the Post's closure.

Ah, but the Justice Department is run by Janet Reno, who is merely the
lesbian love-slave pawn of Hillary Clinton*. Those Liberals on the East
Coast probably laughed as they engineered things so that the Voice of God
in Houston would be shut down, leaving only that ACLU spokes-paper, the
Comical. As soon as we're all asleep, the UN troops will start appearing
on the streets!

*No, don't picture it. It'll only make it worse.

Ward Larkin

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In Article <30FF04...@neosoft.com>, Dwight Silverman
<dwi...@neosoft.com> wrote:

>Wayne Bostow wrote:
>
>> Maybe the biggest aspect of Chronicle censorship is that the anti-trust
>> issues never even get talked about in this town.
>>
>
>Given that Houstonites have access to nearly a half-dozen local TV channels
with
>newscasts; dozens of radio stations with newscasts; numerous neighborhood
>papers; two "alternative" newsweeklies; USA Today; The Wall Street Journal;
>regional distribution of the Dallas Morning News and the New York Times; CNN,
>CSPAN and CNBC; plus news services provided by all the major on-line services;
>I'm not sure there are any anti-trust issues to discuss. If you're dissatisfied

>with Houston's Leading Information Source, you have many other information
>sources at your disposal.
>

Oh, you english speaking-(reading) elitists!!!

There's a spanish language daily newspaper in Houston -- El Dia -- along
with numerous radio stations and two TV stations.

El Dia's offices are 6120 Tarnef, #110, Houston, TX 77074
For subscription information call (713) 772-8900

Ward Larkin Adelante
wa...@adelante.com 15327 Pebble Bend Drive
Voice: (713) 444-3840 Houston, TX 77068-1839


David Crane

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Peter da Silva (pe...@taronga.com) wrote:
: I don't get the Comical and I didn't get the Pest when it existed, but I'm

: surprised... the Comical has always seemed to be rather on the right of
: center, leaving the left to the Pest...

I've always felt the opposite about them. The Post was conservative,
though Democratic. The Chronicle editorial staff has always been a bunch
of left-wing radicals. Even the New York (Daily Worker and) Times looks
conservative compared to the Chronicle.

Dwight Silverman

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to

Ha! If the right-wingers think we're liberal, and the lefties think
we're conservative, we must be doing something right. . .

Dwight Silverman

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
Nathaniel McIntosh wrote:
>
> |In article <30FF04...@neosoft.com> Dwight Silverman <dwi...@neosoft.com> writes:
> |

> Speaking of the Post: who's going to be moving into their old
> building? When I drove past it the other day, I saw a bunch of
> workmen making some alterations to the loading dock... it looked like
> the sort of preparations that go on before a new tenant
> arrives. Anybody know?
>

The Chronicle owns the Post building, and we're using it for a variety
of things -- such as printing parts of the Chronicle.

--
+=======================+=======================================+


| Dwight Silverman | E-mail: dwight.s...@chron.com |
| The Houston Chronicle | Voice: 713-220-6873 |
| Computer columnist & | Fax: 713-220-7273 |

| Technology reporter | WWW: http://www.neosoft.com/~dwights/ |
+=======================+=======================================+

Sue A. Lawyer

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <MCINTOSH.96...@noel.rice.edu> mcin...@rice.edu (Nathaniel McIntosh) writes:

>|I sure wish the Post were still around. Having 2 newspapers is a Good Thing(TM).
>|But look around the country ... two-newspaper towns are a dying breed. The
>|economics of big media make it very difficult. Saying Houston can't support 2
>|newspapers is not "blame the victim" ... it's economic reality.

>Speaking of the Post: who's going to be moving into their old
>building? When I drove past it the other day, I saw a bunch of
>workmen making some alterations to the loading dock... it looked like
>the sort of preparations that go on before a new tenant
>arrives. Anybody know?

I HOPE it is the Washington Times, to clean the Chronicle's clock! If you want
to find out what news the pukes at the Chronicle forget to publish, read the
Washington Times.

BTW- they have an entertaining weekly edition, which can be delivered via
mail.

Nathaniel McIntosh

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
|In article <30FF04...@neosoft.com> Dwight Silverman <dwi...@neosoft.com> writes:
|
|I sure wish the Post were still around. Having 2 newspapers is a Good Thing(TM).
|But look around the country ... two-newspaper towns are a dying breed. The
|economics of big media make it very difficult. Saying Houston can't support 2
|newspapers is not "blame the victim" ... it's economic reality.


Speaking of the Post: who's going to be moving into their old
building? When I drove past it the other day, I saw a bunch of
workmen making some alterations to the loading dock... it looked like
the sort of preparations that go on before a new tenant
arrives. Anybody know?

Nat

Louis Brown

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
mcin...@rice.edu (Nathaniel McIntosh) wrote:

I agree with Mr. Silverman.

When the Post went to color, they bought color presses. The
Chronicle's color presses were, to use a technical term, crappy.
Everytime the Chronicle wanted new presses, Hearst pointed down the
freeway and said, "Be patient. You can have the Post's."

When the Chronicle bought the Post and closed it--let's not split
hairs; that's what happened--they moved into the building and took
over the color presses. That's why some of the Chronicle sections look
so crisp and clean. I don't believe the Post's presses can support
full runs of the Chronicle, which is why some of the lesser sections
still look like those magic picture puzzles.

I'm not mourning the Post; it hadn't been strong in years. Nothing but
USA Today and abbreviated AP stories. And they never had the NYTimes
stuff. (The best reporters in Houston are still in New York). I'm
being overly critical though, the heart of the paper was the
editorial, but I never read that.

The real winner in the newspaper war was not the Chronicle, however,
but the Houston Press. Tabloids usually don't do well in two newspaper
towns and the Press opened with the belief that the Post would fold
soon.

Well, it took forever for the Post to die.

And that made the Press nervous.

When the Chronicle raised their advertising rates, the Press became a
realistic alternative for a number of advertisers--advertisers which
could have bigger ads for less money aimed at a desirable demographic.
The paper has more ads, including those tedioius sex ads in the back,
but fewer articles.

Anyway, the answer is: the Chronicle owns the Post building.

Wow. It felt great to vent my pet theories and bar room observations.
Aren't newsgroups great.


Jeffrey E. Salzberg

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
In article <4drc1d$9...@uunews.computize.com>,
Ed Uthman <uth...@domi.net> wrote:

+>As to Hillary Clinton and Whitewater, all I can say is "BFD." It's not
+>nearly as bad as Watergate, and I thought even that was a minor
+>peccadillo which should not have cost a good president his job.

Unfortunately, we didn't *have* a good president at the time and Watergate did
an admirable job of getting rid of a bad, venal one.


I think that Whitewater is worthwhile if only because Al D'Amato is so funny
to watch as he flails around, desperate to find *anything* to use against the
Clintons.

Jeffrey E. Salzberg

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
In article <4dr83v$p...@crl8.crl.com>, dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) wrote:

+>Please explain just how the ownership of the Washington Times has
+>affected the editorial policy of the that paper. Surely you have some
+>"before and after" examples?

Sure.

After: The Times is a far-right paper.

Before: The Times didn't exist.


+>Come off your high horse kid. Admit it, you have never read the
+>Washington Times.

On the contrary, sonny; I lived in DC when it first hit the streets and read
both it and the Post.


David Crane

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
Jeffrey E. Salzberg (JSal...@uh.edu) wrote:
: In article <Eat.13.0249666E@Joes>, Eat@Joes (Sue A. Lawyer) wrote:

: +>I HOPE it is the Washington Times, to clean the Chronicle's clock! If you
: want
: +>to find out what news the pukes at the Chronicle forget to publish, read the
: +>Washington Times.

: Just what Houston needs -- a far-right paper owned by the Moonies.

Please explain just how the ownership of the Washington Times has

affected the editorial policy of the that paper. Surely you have some

"before and after" examples? And while you are at it, what religious
denomination are the folks that own the Houston Chronicle? I want to
know if their stance on abortion is colored by their church or synagogue!!!!

Come off your high horse kid. Admit it, you have never read the

Washington Times.

David Crane

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
Robbie Westmoreland (rob...@phoenix.phoenix.net) wrote:
: In article <31006C...@neosoft.com>,
: Dwight Silverman <dwi...@neosoft.com> wrote:
: >
: >Ha! If the right-wingers think we're liberal, and the lefties think
: >we're conservative, we must be doing something right. . .

: Why do people insist on convincing themselves that large scale
: commercial media have any sort of political conscience? Maybe
: for the same reasons that they convince themselves that their
: politicians have a similar conscience - it helps them deal with
: life if everything is two-tone.

Hardly. The issue was how absolutely lousy the Chronicle is at presenting
the news. They simply do not publish material that a lot of
well-respected papers in the nation do publish.

It has been my observation that both the news and the editorial page of
the Chronicle fall short compared to The New York Times, The San Antonio
Express-News, and even the Wall Street Journal, in the balance of their
coverage. Perhaps the truth is that they are simply CHEAP and refuse to
invest this advertising windfall (since the Post died) in a
proportional amount of additional editorial space. If so, they have been
extremely selective in what they choose to print.

I cannot accept that any newspaper of any importance would dedicate so
much space to the Presley/Jackson divorce (indeed, they even advertised
their coverage on KQUE) and cannot present a balanced coverage comparable
to any well-respected newspaper in the nation.

Sorry, the fault clearly lies with the editorial staff and their political
agenda. It's obvious to anyone willing to suffer through reading
the Chronicle for a few weeks. It has absolutely nothing to do with "two
tone". The entire spectrum is missing - it's one-tone. But I grant you
that someone who thinks that all politicians are alike wouldn't notice
that.


David Crane

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to
Dwight Silverman (dwi...@neosoft.com) wrote:
: Ha! If the right-wingers think we're liberal, and the lefties think
: we're conservative, we must be doing something right. . .

Of course, there are other possibilities. Perhaps the Chronicle doesn't
know what they are doing. Or maybe it is simply surplus.


David Crane

unread,
Jan 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/21/96
to
Jeffrey E. Salzberg (JSal...@uh.edu) wrote:
: In article <4dr83v$p...@crl8.crl.com>, dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) wrote:

: +>Please explain just how the ownership of the Washington Times has
: +>affected the editorial policy of the that paper. Surely you have some
: +>"before and after" examples?

: Sure.
: After: The Times is a far-right paper.
: Before: The Times didn't exist.

Not even cute. You said the Moonies own the Washigton Post and implied
that was bad. You gave no examples of the Moonie religion or any
"un-American" input to the paper. Is "far-right" (your definition of it)
a crime? And what has that to do with these horrible Moonies you are
railing against? Or is it simply your political sickness showing?

David Crane

unread,
Jan 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/21/96
to
Ed Uthman (uth...@domi.net) wrote:
: In article <4diud1$7...@news.hal-pc.org> Mike Mashburn, mq...@hal-pc.org
: writes:

: If you want a "liberal" paper, check out the Washington Post or the New
: York Times. The Chronicle ain't it! :)

The Washington Post is "liberal"? May we assume you have never read it?

Jeffrey E. Salzberg

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to
In article <4duu8c$6...@crl7.crl.com>, dcr...@crl.com (David Crane) wrote:

+>Not even cute. You said the Moonies own the Washigton Post

No, I said they own the Times. They do. Please read more carefully.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages