Conference back40::soapbox

    Yes she is.  How good of one is another question completely.

    It's interesting that .0 brings up Murrow and Cronkite, because
    I'd been thinking along the same lines yesterday.  There was a
    time when the CBS news organization was the pinnacle of broadcast
    journalism, and the envy of their competitors, a time when CBS
    news viewers would regularly see the likes of:
    
    Edward R. Murrow
    Walter Cronkite
    Douglas Edwards
    Eric Sevareid
    Howard K. Smith (later went to ABC)
    Harry Reasoner
    Roger Mudd
    Charles Kuralt
    Morley Safer
    
    and many others that I'm no doubt forgetting.  The quality of news
    on the other networks has pretty much hit bottom as well, but somehow
    CBS seems to have fallen further than most, perhaps because it fell
    from a loftier level.
    
    Chris

    Affirmative Action at work!! :-(

    .2
    
    the quality of broadcast journalism has fallen to the level that the
    majority of viewers want.  but broadcast is a LONG way behind paper
    journalism in its desire to excel at pandering to low tastes.
    
    does the term "yellow journalism" ring a bell?  it's from the cheap
    yellow paper that crap tabloids used to be printed on, but maybe
    chung's oriental heritage will give it a new meaning.

    	Connie Chung is by definition a journalist; however, she has shown
    that she is not capable of being a reliable journalist. She has also
    show that she is, also by definition, a bitch. 
    	Would anyone argue any of the above?

    
    
    
    What I saw cunning Chung say was that we don't understand, that if we
    watch the whole interview (plugging her show), we will understand that
    the way things were going, that Newt's mom knew that it would be
    broadcast.
    
    
    Mike  

    Connie is a 
    
    Beautiful
    
    Intellegent
    
    Talented
    
    Charming 
    
    Human?
    
    I never thought I would see any of you refer to her in such a way.

    
    
    i had always thought that connie was a pretty classy lady...up until i
    heard about this.  (i don't remember the tonya thing).  i haven't seen
    the interview, tho i did hear an phone interview with maury this
    morning.  it seems that mrs. newt was whispering a lot of things all
    nite...not just the bitch comment.  but still...to drag it out of her
    that way...
    
    

  >>>      Connie is a
    
  >>>      Beautiful
    
 >>>       Intellegent
    
 >>       Talented
    
>>>>        Charming
    
    Suddenly, a cold sweat broke out as the ghost of /Nasser appeared!!

    that's \nasser, jack.

    
    hey bender, i thought that William Randolph Hearst's style of
    journalism was the first to be called "yellow".  And I thought this was
    before the age of tabloids, as we know them.
    
    jeff

>    does the term "yellow journalism" ring a bell?  it's from the cheap
>    yellow paper that crap tabloids used to be printed on, but maybe
>    chung's oriental heritage will give it a new meaning.

If Jong were still here...

    again... if you did see it you couldn't possibly attach the
    word "drag" to the question. Sheesh, it's amazing the number of
    people drawing conclusions without having seen it. not smart.
    
    Chip

    re: the Tonya thing
    
    As I remember it, she chased Tonya all over the country, and
    even all over the globe like a slobbering fanboy (er, fangirl),
    begging for interviews, and so on.  Tonya agreed with the
    stipulation that several specific conditions be applied and
    honored.
    
    Chung agreed.  In the midst of one of the interviews, she then
    violated one or more of the conditions that she'd agreed to, and
    wouldn't back off.  Tonya quietly got up and walked out.
    
    You know you've sunk lower than low when you can make even the likes
    of Tonya Harding get up and leave a room in disgust.  :-)
    
    Chris

>    again... if you did see it you couldn't possibly attach the
>    word "drag" to the question. Sheesh, it's amazing the number of
>    people drawing conclusions without having seen it. not smart.

Did you see the clip, or heard it??? I DID! She said "JUST BETWEEN 
YOU AND ME"... Newt's mom didn't wanna say it, then when connie 
said "JUST BETWEEN YOU AND ME" she whispered it...

Are you really so biased???

/scott

    ...i really think it was the word she didn't want to say aloud.
    i really don't think it was the sentiment she was struggling at
    conveying. 
    
    please move on to some other note so we can rehash it there, maybe
    Dreams?
    
    Chip

Excerpt from the 1/4/95 TIME DAILY NEWS SUMMARY
   
   GINGRICH . . . RHYMES WITH RICH: First Al Gore's parents gave
   reporters mildly-embarrassing letters he had written to them as a
   college student. Now, in an interview with CBS anchor Connie Chung, to
   be aired on "Eye to Eye" Thursday, new House Speaker Newt Gingrich's
   mother, Kathleen, confides in a whisper that her "Newty" told her that
   Hillary Rodham Clinton is "a bitch." The Speaker immediately turned
   the incident into a tussle over journalistic ethics, demanding an
   apology for Chung's tactics in securing the comment from his mother,
   who, he noted, was unsophisticated about interview techniques. He may
   have a point.
   
   According to the CBS transcript, the exchange in question ran as
   follows:
   
   Chung: Mrs. Gingrich, what has Newt told you about President Clinton?
   
   Mrs. Gingrich: Nothing and I can't tell you what he said about
   Hillary.
   
   Chung: You can't.
   
   Mrs. Gingrich: I can't.
   
   Chung: Why don't you just whisper it to me, just between you and me?
   
   Mrs. Gingrich: "She's a bitch."
   
   As Mrs. Gingrich whispered the comment, the CBS tape continued to
   roll.

    .11
    
    > tabloids, as we know them.
    
    check out some of the slasher articles in london's racier papers of,
    say, autumn 1889.  the size of the average thrillpaper's page may have
    changed, but the style of content is older'n the hills; you can see
    much the same sort of thing on the walls of herculaneum.

    Newt's mom is a 2 watt light bulb.

    ... better apologize

    Two thoughts 
    
    - *my* mother saw the interview with Newt's mom, not just
    the transcript/audio tape most of us caught on last night's news. 
    From what I've been told, Newty's mommy looked right at the camera as
    she quoted him regarding Hillary.  I tend to think Newt's mom knew
    precisely what she was doing - generating more publicity for Newt,
    period.  I took a college course in theatrical criticism year ago,
    where my professor told us, in regard to bad press, "Any publicity is
    good publicity, even bad press!".
    
    - If Newt's mom is so unsophisticated as to fall victim to Connie,
    perhaps she should have refused the interview opportunity.  After all,
    Connie is rather well known as a hard-hitting interviewer who doesn't
    give up on a question.  The chances for embarassment were numerous, and
    Newty should be happy that Mom only let that little verbal Gringrich
    pearl slip.  I, for one, can certainly see where Newt would come by
    this opinion of Hillary.  I ain't saying I agree with him, mind you,
    just that I can see why he might think so.
    
    M.
     

    The concept of Connie Chung being considered a hard-hitting journalist
    is outrageous.  Connie has the journalistic skills of a high school
    newspaper reporter and has her position to one simple reason, her sex.
    
    She was brought in with the rest of the talking female heads in order
    to calm the sexism questions and has not improved her skills.
    
    Now, unfortunately, Connie didn't do anything that different than most
    other talking heads, male or female, but it should serve to point out
    that todays "news" people are talentless buffoons that are only out to
    become the next Woodward and Bernstein.
    
    Those who agree with her style and lack of ability sure tell a lot
    about their own lack of character.
    

    Re: .23
    
    I'm confused.  First, you claim that Connie has her position only
    because she's female; the implication is that some male journalists
    would do a better job.  But then you say that she's no different than
    any talking head, male or female, and that news people are all
    talentless, which means that she is _not_ less-qualified than any other
    male candidates.
    
    If they're all "talentless buffoons" then how could she have possibly
    beat out anyone more qualified?

    
    Please, Chelsea, we don't want to let logic get in the way of froth.

	Not to burst any bubbles, but does anyone have a list of
	Connie's experience, education, etc. regarding her chosen
	profession?

Jim

    Jim,
    
    For gawd sakes jim, you're getting in the way of some perfectly good
    male froth-bonding. Now stop that before I start a new topic to discuss
    Commie Chung's Boinkability.
    
    -b

    M.,
    
    just out of curiousity, how could your mother have seen the interview
    when it is set to air tonite????
    
    
    

    Newt's mom is a 2 watt light bulb.

    Newt's mom only said what many others have said, and obviously believe,
    seeing some of the comments in the box. Connie must agree as she didn't 
    argue the point. How DID this zero personality beat out Ed Bradley for
    this job? 

>                      <<< Note 227.30 by SECOP1::CLARK >>>
>                               -< Connie agrees >-
>
>    Newt's mom only said what many others have said, and obviously believe,
>    seeing some of the comments in the box. Connie must agree as she didn't 
>    argue the point. How DID this zero personality beat out Ed Bradley for
>    this job? 

Ovaries!

    Re: CC credits
    
    I believe she was climbing fast in the NBC organization a few years ago
    when CBS thought she was worth picking up.
    
    Re: CC boinkability
    
    Fine by me.
    
    Re: Someone's mom seeing CC & Newt's mom before tonight.
    
    Yesterday on the CBS AM show just before the 104th took off, the CBS AM
    crew interviewed Dole and Newt.  As part of that live interview, they
    played the now-infamous clip.  That's when Newt (do we call him that
    because he's one Joule short of a full Newton?) took off on the wrong
    direction, live on camera.
    
    Frankly I think momma gingrich invited the whole thing when she
    finished her sentence with the tempting, ", but I can't tell you what
    he said about Hillary."
    
    I bet he let her have it.
    
    -- Jim

      <<< Note 227.32 by TINCUP::AGUE "DTN-592-4939, 719-598-3498(SSL)" >>>

>.    Frankly I think momma gingrich invited the whole thing when she
>  finished her sentence with the tempting, ", but I can't tell you what
>   he said about Hillary."

	I think that Mom made a mistake as well. But the minute that Connie
	goes "off the record" she is ethically obligated to not use what
	she heard. Connie, not Mom is at fault here.

Jim

    Mom is a two watt lightbulb.
    
    Connie probably needs a warm moist rogering.

 If I'm not mistaken Ms Chung was at one time a news reader on KTVU Channel
 2 in Oakland Calif (this goes back to early 70's, and then in Los Angeles
 before NBC grabbed her.


 Even Ted O'brien (news director channel 68 in Boston and liberal) felt
 Ms Chung was out of line (though he did think that the 2 watt lightbulb
 should have realized what was going on).




 Jim

           <<< Note 227.35 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

> If I'm not mistaken Ms Chung was at one time a news reader on KTVU Channel
> 2 in Oakland Calif (this goes back to early 70's, and then in Los Angeles
> before NBC grabbed her.

	Has she ever actually been a "reporter". You know, the kind of 
	person that goes out and researches a story. Or has she always been
	a "talking head"?

Jim

    whereas mom has been a two watt light bulb before.

Re: <<< Note 227.36 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>	Has she ever actually been a "reporter". You know, the kind of 
>>	person that goes out and researches a story. Or has she always been
>>	a "talking head"?

I donno, but I do remember her co-anchoring the news from LA when I was
attending Cow Piley in San Luis Obsipo in the late 70s.

                              Roak

    
    aside from the infamous quote, the connie chung report on newt 
    tonight was the most positive, or least negative, view of him
    from any of the networks to date, imo.  it was disappointing though,
    that chung didn't ask newt's youngest sister why she had her hair
    cut like moe howard's. 8^)
    
    at the end of the program, cc said hillary has invited newt and his
    mother to the white house for a private tour.  
    
    bill

    oh, hey... if O'Brian said it must be gospel. anyone seen the
    tablets? and after all, there was that cake that was baked.
    let's not forget that. that simply is the most humungous
    sacrifice any human has ever made and placed trust on since
    the dawn of time. wow, this is fun.
    
    oh, and barn-icle-mike also jumped on the CC trashing team. now 
    that really seals it! 
    
    Re; mummy-newt bein' a 2-watter... i dunno, but if it's so, the
    filament definitely went south many moons ago.
    
    i'm thinkin' that CC makes muco donero so a lotta folks can't make the
    connection as to why... some of comments have a green hue to them...
    
    Chip

    
    
    Connie is just another news commentator.  Too bad there are very few
    news reporters around any longer.  The problem with the news today is
    that it's always reported with slant and never just reported. 
    Sometimes the slant is very subtle, but it is there nonetheless.  I
    want to hear what's going on, I don't need to hear how I should feel
    about what's going on and the issues of the day.  I wouldn't pick
    Connie as one of the top reporters I've seen, there are probably
    millions of folks (male and female) who could do it better, some
    probably here in this forum.  
    
    As for the comment, it was stupid for momma Newt to say and it was
    stupid for Connie to ask "just between you and me".
    
    
    Mike

    ...and would it have been stupid if CC said "aw, cone on..."?
    
    musta missed the gun CC had to mummy-newt's head.
    
    Chip

    
    
    heard on the radio another clip from the interview, connie saying there
    is another "'strange twist' in newt's story...his sister is a lesbian"...
    so what???  big deal...she asked the sister if she (the sis) thought newt
    was embarrassed because she is gay...(like it matters)...and she came
    back with "i think he's more embarrassed that i'm a democrat..."..
    
    
    still, i don't care that newt's mom said what she said.  i also agree
    with the person who said she sort of tease with the 'but i can't tell 
    what he said about hillary' thing...but connie had no business telling
    her it was going to be between just the two of them when she had every
    intention of letting the world know...
    
    
    

    Glad I have the next unseen option on my t.v.  WGAS whether or not
    Newt's sister likes girls better than boys.  Maybe it will provide for
    a little tempering and make Newt a more well rounded individual,
    mentally, politcally and spiritually that is.  I know, I know, there
    are a lot of folks that GAS ans are probably gasping that Newt has such
    an abomination in the family closet.  Make the family a little more
    real if you ask me, not that anyone did. 
    
    Brian

    
     If this whole fiasco (and many others like it) are considered
    "journalism" then this world is in a sad state of affairs indeed...
    

    -.1 in your opinion...

RE:    <<< Note 227.36 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

   
>> If I'm not mistaken Ms Chung was at one time a news reader on KTVU Channel
>> 2 in Oakland Calif (this goes back to early 70's, and then in Los Angeles
>> before NBC grabbed her.

>	Has she ever actually been a "reporter". You know, the kind of 
>	person that goes out and researches a story. Or has she always been
>	a "talking head"?


  Not sure.  I lived in the SF area when she was on Ch 2 and I don't remember
  a lot about her back then (don't remember a lot of much of anything from
  back then).  I don't recall her being a beat reporter, though.  I think 
  she was put on a fast track to the big time as female anchors were a bit
  of a novelty back then (they were relegated to "weather girl" duties).



Jim

    Diet Cokie or Classic Cokie?

    -2 Bwahahahahahahahha!  Good un' Chip.

    Re: 23
    
    You made a very simple mistake in reading my entry.  There were two
    separate ppints.  The first is that Ms. Chung has her position based on
    her sex and not skills.  the second is that, almost without exception,
    all of the talking heads are basically the same.
    
    The goal is to become stars themselves and not be too concerned about
    the accuracy of what they report.  If they can create a good topic,
    whether based on fact or not, is irrelavent.
    
    This display by Connie is just the latest example of the lack of ethics
    and skills in the news business today.
    
    The concept of a reporter actually learning the trade I suppose is
    unrealistic as long as the media has folks like Connie to ignore
    ethics.
    
    Hope this helps.  Also it may be a good idea to not try and find sexism
    where none exists.  It tends to put you in the same category as Connie,
    et. al.
    

    But, Connie Chung *is* "hard-hitting"... she hits the bottom as
    hard as anyone I've ever seen, and then proceeds to feed from the
    bottom with a fervor unseen in most "journalists" today.
    
    Chris

    Whenever this interview is shown, if it indeed gets a ratings boost,
    Chung will be rewarded by her employers.
    
    Sadly, an awful lot of our news these days has this format:
    overwrought, hyped-up sensationalism with little or no content
    and even less context.
    
    All you can do is vote with your remote control.

    
    
    I'd love to be in a situation where I am interviewed by one of these
    folks.  Be a lot of fun as long as it wasn't as the result of a tragic
    situation.
    
    
    Mike

    
    >Ms. Chung has her position based on
    >her sex and not skills. 
    
    And you know this to be fact and not just your opinion because...?
    
    >It may be a good idea to not try and find sexism
    >where none exists.
    
    
    You are too funny.
                                                           

    I'd bet there's a real skill involved in giving a good interview.

|   Sadly, an awful lot of our news these days has this format:
|   overwrought, hyped-up sensationalism with little or no content
|   and even less context.
    
    Litle or no content and even less context....
    
    Would that be something on the order of judging a several minute piece
    on Newt's family on the basis of about 16 seconds?
    
    Taken as a whole, the piece was damn weak.  I don't care about Newtee,
    I don't care that his sister wouldn't vote for him, I don't care about
    cakes, I don't care about gas station apartments, I don't care I don't
    care I don't care.
    
    
    Yesterday's journalism class was taught by Cokie Roberts.
    But I forgot.  Her only qualifications are her ovaries too, huh?
    
    								-mr. bill

    re .20
    
    >>Newt's mom is a 2 watt light bulb<<
    
    Like mother like son!!!!!!!

| Roger Mudd



	Didn't he play Major Mudd in the 60's???

    >Like mother like son!!!!!!!
    
     And think about how much more on the ball he is than you. By that
    measure, if you excel every day for the rest of your life, you might be
    a birthday candle...

    I watched the broadcast last night, only because I had advanced notice 
    about the 'between you and me' promise by Chung.  Our TV usually
    broadcasts only cartoons and kiddie videos.
    
    The entire show resembles a "People's Magazine Video", pure
    entertainment with little substance.

    >> | Roger Mudd
    >>	Didn't he play Major Mudd in the 60's???
    
    Yes, but then he was demoted when he was caught rogering
    Judy Valentine from the Bozo set across the lot.
    
    Chris

    <- shades of Fantastic Features and Freep...

I was inclined, based on what I'd heard, to see Ms. Chung's "objective" reporting
as a breach of confidence. 

But watching the entire interview, a question asked very early on before the
Hillary-related one gave it a slightly more ambiguous interpretation. When
discussing where Newt was born/raised Ms. Gingrich said he was a "Yankee".
Ms. Chung's response was "Well we won't tell anybody".

It was obviously a joke.

Later Ms. Gingrich volunteers the teaser, and it could be interpreted that
Chung was joking in the same vein when she said "just between you and me".

If the previous joking reference to confidentiality hadn't been made it would
be more plain to me that a deliberate intent to lure the mother to an
indiscretion was occurring. Based on the mother's leading statement, a
perfectly natural response would be "What did he say?", and I'm not so sure
she wouldn't have answered in any case.

It should also be obvious that Chung doesn't bear the responsibility - if any
is to be had - alone for this. 

    For a good tome, call Connie Chung.

    .61
    >>And think about how much more on the ball he is than you.  By that
    measure, if you excell every day for the rest of your life, you might
    be a birthday candle....<<
    
    I can see, for example, how a mental midget might just find Newt-the-Nut 
    an awesome, dazzling star.  However, to the rest of the thinking,
    reasoning world he's just a loud, out-of-control booby with more mouth than 
    sense.  And again "Like Mother Like Son".   

    Mr Gaskell:
    
    What policies in particular that Gingrich supports do you find
    offensive?  Do you find the status quo more appealing?  Just curious.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .52
    
    >There were two separate ppints.
    
    Yes, I noticed.  My claim is that they are contradictory.
    
    >Also it may be a good idea to not try and find sexism where none
    >exists
    
    What I found was a poor example of logical thought.  I made no claim
    about what caused that lapse in logic; perhaps this is your guilty 
    conscience speaking up....

    
    
    Chelsea,
    
    
    Do you really believe that gender and/or nationality has nothing to do
    with choice of anchors?
    
    
    Mike

    Well, I think if you're good looking, you have a much better chance at
    being an anchor than if you're not. That's discrimination.

I used to think attractiveness was the A-1 prerequisite for
TV newsfolk, but then I saw Irving R. Levine.

    irving precedes the current mindset by many years, i believe.  

    Not only that, I think he started before you had to be good looking.

    Chelsea:
    
    There proves my point from the last conference re: Affirmative Action.  
    Even if she was hired based on competence, she is put in a box by
    society because of government mandates imposed on industries!
    
    -Jack
    

| <<< Note 227.74 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN "Jojo the Fishing Widow" >>>


| I used to think attractiveness was the A-1 prerequisite for
| TV newsfolk, but then I saw Irving R. Levine.

	That was too funny Joanne! Ya had me rolling!

    Re: .72
    
    >Do you really believe that gender and/or nationality has nothing to do
    >with choice of anchors?
    
    What I believe has nothing to do with the quality of Mr. Rocush's
    argument.  Which is to say, someone could come up with a strong
    argument that Connie Chung is in her position only because she's
    female, and her abilities had nothing to do with her selection.  But
    apparently, that someone won't be Mr. Rocush.

     Well, Rosemary, I have yet to see any indication whatsoever that you
    are fit to carry his briefcase. But, being a big shot yourself, I can
    see how easily you look down upon the speaker of the house. I'd bet you
    haven't even looked beyond the sound bites. When's the last time you
    watched him on C-SPAN? You know, that station where you get to see
    congress critters in action, without the mind numbing talking head
    interpretation done for you. I haven't seen you articulate exactly what
    about Newt brands him as having "more mouth than sense", though I can
    see evidence that you are projecting with this particular claim.
    

    Re: .77
    
    >There proves my point
    
    What's this proof of which you speak?
    
    >Even if she was hired based on competence, she is put in a box by
    >society because of government mandates imposed on industries!
    
    No, she is put in a box because she's the subject of controversy, and
    her journalistic abilities are being more heavily scrutinized.  I don't
    see Diane Sawyer or Leslie Stahl or Christiane Amanapour being put in
    any boxes.

    	All .79 shows is that Mr. Rocush is willing to state his
    	beliefs and you are not.
    
    	Or are you suggesting that all things posted here have to be
    	arguments and not statements of belief or opinion...

    >state his beliefs 
    
     More like parade his prejudices.

    
    
    
    
        re.64
    
    
        Nit,....that was Feep,.....and it was Fantasmic Features.
    
    
        
        Ed
    

    
    
>>        Nit,....that was Feep,.....and it was Fantasmic Features.
    
	thanks.  i thought that looked wrong too, but couldn't
	figure out why.  which came first - "Fantasmic Features" or
	"One Step Beyond"?

    
    
       That goes back a ways,...I think it was FF,....do you recall that
       the voice of Feep was,......Major Mudd??
    
    
       Ed
    
       

    
    
>>       That goes back a ways,...I think it was FF,....do you recall that
>>       the voice of Feep was,......Major Mudd??

       i think i used to know that.  ;>  used to watch Major Mudd a lot.
       not that this has anything to do with Connie, except that Feep
       would have made at least as interesting an anchor person.  ;>
       

    
    
      Yeah,....Feep as an anchor,....would've been a blast.
    
    
      Ed
    
    

I believe Connie Chung started with CBS as a beat reporter for CBS radio
covering Capitol Hill in the early 70s.  She worked her way up to news anchor 
at local TV in LA.  A few stints with CBS network TV led up to a news anchor 
position with Dan Rather, but her background is in reporting.

I heard that Connie moved up the ladder and didn't care who she stepped on
along the way.  However, that could be said for just about anyone in the 
business, male or female.  You have to be very agressive to survive and
thrive.  However, if you are male, thats called assertiveness.  If you
are female, you are called a bitch.

AAA

>> However, if you are male, thats called assertiveness.  If you
>> are female, you are called a bitch.
    
    Not at all... for example, Christiane Amanpour is obviously
    a strong-willed, aggressive journalist who is rapidly moving
    up the ranks, but no one would think of calling her a "bitch".
    Amanpour has earned a lot of respect from both viewers and her
    peers of both genders, while Chung is primarily a... bitch.
    
    Chris

    Re: 79 & 82
    
    First, I didn't make the statement with any supporting arguments
    because I don't beleive there is any need to.  I had the displeasure of
    seeing her when she first came on the scene in Chicago and she was
    terrible as a talking head, let alone as a reporter.  It was, however,
    at the time all stations were trying to get sexual representation
    without regard to ability.  Connie just fitrs right in, and I have yet
    to see her do anything to change my opinion.
    
    Also, charging prejudice without anything to back it up is pretty lame,
    even for you.  But then I don't expect much else when you can't come up
    with a decent position of your own.  Name calling is so typical.
    

Not having seen Ms. Amanpour, I can't make the comparison between her
and Ms. Chung.  Based on your description, she seems to be a very
compentent journalist.

But...

There is a distinction between calling someone incompentent and
labeling this same person a b*tch.  Are you saying she is a
b*tch because she isn't compentent as other female journalists?  
I'm curious to know what your criteria or benchmark is for associating 
that label.

FWIW I don't think Connie is that good as an anchor, and her reading
skills are mediocre at best.  That doesn't make her a b*tch.

My take in the interview with Newt's mom is that both sides look bad.
Connie was pretty stupid for even suggesting that something is "just
between you and me" when there is a microphone that can pick up 
everyting and a camera that can makes reading lips pretty obvious.
On the other hand, for Newt's mom to suggest that "I can't tell you
what he said about his wife" is also pretty ridiculous because that's
just inviting someone to try to pry it out.  And in the news business,
you are paid to get people to say outrageous things, so I don't blame
Connie for trying to get it out of her, that's her job.  Anyone else
would have done the same, b*tch or otherwise.

AAA

    Hey guys and gals, time to move on.  The Gingriches and Clintons have. 
    The First Lady has invited Newt and his mom over for cookies and tea,
    the President held Newt's hand as he wonderer aloud, what CC would have
    gotten out of his mom.
    
    My guess is that she would have said Newt's a bastard.
    
    -- Jim

    Well, his mother is a 2 watt light bulb after all. Yes, light bulbs
    have curves. oo-er.

>> Are you saying she is a
>> b*tch because she isn't compentent as other female journalists?  
    
    No... competence has nothing to do with "b*tchiness"... it's
    mainly because of what she did to Gingrich's mother.  Part of it
    involves an arrogant, almost proud display of her lack of principles,
    combined with a smug knowingness that no one can do anything about it.
    It also involves lots of obviously third-hand impressions from
    various interviews and magazine articles.  But mostly, I wanted to
    make the point that female assertiveness does not equate to
    "b*tchiness", in my opinion.  I don't think Chung was being assertive,
    she was being manipulative and deceptive, thus the label.
    
    
>> I'm curious to know what your criteria or benchmark is for associating 
>> that label.
    
    Well, I use it sparingly... when I do use it, it usually refers to
    some combination of arrogance, condescension, superior-than-thou,
    chip-on-shoulder, irritability or the ability to produce irritation,
    sometimes intentionally.  But rather than come up with my own definition,
    I'll point to one that someone (Doctah, perhaps) entered last week when
    this matter first came up, because it was perhaps the most complete
    one I've seen.
    
    By the way, as much as I dislike Chung's and CBS's tactics here, I
    agree that (not having seen the mother and not knowing her level
    of awareness, etc.) the mother must be in severe need of a clue to
    even permit such an interview in the first place, never mind
    answering such a question under any stipulation at all.  But that
    still doesn't let Chung and CBS off the hook.
    
    Chris

    I saw an editorial the other day; somebody was arguing that if the term
    bitch is going to be used so politically as a negative to tear down the
    character and achievements of strong and agressive women, that maybe
    it's time to reclaim the term.  Newt's mom uses it in proxy for Newt
    against Hillary (and it isn't the first time the term has been used
    against Ms Rodham); it was used against Geraldine Ferraro during her
    stint as Mondale's VP candidate in 1988.  The op-ed piece suggested
    that powerful women execs carry BITCH coffee mugs to high-end meetings
    and let the chips fall where they may.
    
    Gene Haag and I had a go-around over a women who had a 'bitch and proud
    of it' or something like that bumper sticker on her car, a few weeks
    back, in the Things to Wonder About topic.  It looks to me like there's
    already a groundswell reclaiming the term.  Backlash politics want to
    use BITCH as an epithet against strong women?  Guess what, boyz- it
    may not work for much longer.  If enough women decide they don't care
    that some recalcitrant neo-redneck wants to call them BITCH, decide
    that if that's the label they get they'll wear it proudly, not let it
    cow them as its usage is INTENDED to do...then we may see yet another
    step advanced for women in the workplace.
    
    Too bad each step has to be so ugly, but if its war, its war.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Actually Doug, I know many successful women who I don't think act like
    bitches and I know some who do.  I also know some successful men who
    act like bitches and I know some who do not.
    
    
    Mike

    Carrying a mug like that does nothing for the exec woman.  All it does
    is show she lacks the integrity to act like a lady!!!
    
    -Jack

    yahbut, Mike, there's no way any liberal woman could ever actually BE a
    bitch; it's merely a device neo-fascist redneck men use to put down
    powerful women because they feel threatened.

    That isn't the point, Mike.  The point is that the word BITCH is using
    social pressure to attempt to force someone, always a woman, to change
    their behavior.  Its a loaded word.  It is being used politically.  If
    enough people recognize that and refuse to bow to the pressure, then
    the use of the word will start to exact a penalty upon those who use it
    "oh, what's the matter, little boy, afraid of the woman so you call her
    names?"  Yet another method of trying to control the bahaviour of women
    unmasked.
    
    DougO

    
    witch is a better term now, i guess, considering all the politization
    of the perferred term.
    
    jeff

    What we need then is a "genderless" word that encapsulates that
    particular set of personality traits and behaviors that are currently
    described in verbal shorthand using the word "bitch".  And it has
    nothing to do with female assertiveness, aggressiveness, position,
    status, or politics, at least for the vast majority of its usage that
    I've witnessed.
    
    Chris

	.95

	"reclaim" the term?  don't you think that another term could as
	easily take its place, dougo?  women can't hope to make the 
	attitude go away by playing word games.

    Perhaps if I start using a "Bastard" coffee mug, my career will take
    off?
    
    Hmmmmm. Sounds like a trip to the "It" store is in order.....

    Re: .90
    
    >I didn't make the statement with any supporting arguments because I 
    >don't beleive there is any need to
    
    This is Soapbox.  If you aren't prepared to back up what you say, then
    don't complain about nailed for it.
    
    >charging prejudice without anything to back it up is pretty lame,
    
    I made no charges.  I pointed out that your statements were
    contradictory.  Your insistence that I said something I didn't sounds
    like a guilty conscience to me.
    
    >when you can't come up with a decent position of your own.
    
    I haven't stated it.  That doesn't mean I don't have one.
    
    Are gender and nationality irrelevant to hiring decisions?  No.  So
    what?  You don't often see two men co-anchoring on a regular basis, so
    there are obviously times when a station will go after a male anchor,
    rather than choosing the best one (who might be female).
    
    Appearance isn't irrelevant to hiring decisions, either, and that has
    nothing to do with journalistic ability, either.  That's TV for you.
    
    None of this has anything to do with the fact that you made two
    contradictory statements, and all the finger-pointing in the world
    can't make that go away.  So take your lumps like a grown-up and move
    on to something else.

    Re: .97
    
    >All it does is show she lacks the integrity to act like a lady!!!
    
    Lady shmady.  Social manners have nothing to do with business manners. 
    Social manners say, thou shalt not brag.  Business manners say, let
    people know when you've done something good.  Social manners say, it's
    rude to discuss money.  Business manner say, get to the bottom line.
    
    Believe me, you really don't want social manners enforced at work.

    
    
    Chelsea nails Rocush....
    
    Film at 11:00!!!
    

    
    .104
    
    >This is Soapbox.  If you aren't prepared to back up what you say, then
    don't complain about nailed for it.
    
    You mean, Ms. Miracle Worker ACTUALLY made a mistake????

    
    
    Sometimes the term is used in the wrong way, but that does not mean
    that it is not true in some instances.
    
    
    Mike

    >"reclaim" the term?  don't you think that another term could as
    > easily take its place, dougo?
    
    Oh, reclaimed terms still get used as epithets; consider 'queer'.
    It still gets used in a pejorative sense. 'bitch' certainly would, too. 
    But it reveals the paucity of intellect and feebleness of the rant in
    such cases.
    
    >women can't hope to make the attitude go away by playing word games.
    
    What *can* we 'hope to do', Di?  is there anything to be done when
    some moron calls you a 'bitch' to weaken your position?  What exactly
    did Gene hope to accomplish in here a few weeks ago by calling that
    unknown woman a bitch?  I consider the term as an epithet to be an
    unacceptably sexist slur.  It is an attack solely upon women, solely
    upon a woman.  I think that we (not just women) need to change the
    perception of what is socially acceptable language to make it clear
    that the use of such words against women is out of bounds.  I would
    hope that we can do that by reclaiming the word.  It won't make the
    attitude 'go away'; people who find bitch taken from their vocab will
    undoubtedly use the 'c' word; though perhaps more reservedly.  In such
    change yes, some attitudes will change.  I don't consider it word
    games.  YMMV.
    
    DougO

    Re: .107
    
    >Ms. Miracle Worker ACTUALLY made a mistake????
    
    Where've you been?  That was hardly the first.
    
    Of course, it's a good sign when one's mistakes are so rare that
    they're cause for major news flashes....

    yer satyr metr is slo 2day

    	Bitch is used solely for women because it is solely a female
    	term.
    
    	If any apologies are due in this mother-grinch episode, they should
    	be made to half the dog owners in this nation whose lady canines
    	were so rudely equated to Hillary.

    No, I think I measured it correctly....

    The words Christian and gay were actually originated as derogatory and
    were claimed by the attacked group as a scorn of honor.  
    
    Chelsea...I disagree.  Unfortunately, a woman has the extra onus of
    gaining the respect of the male population in the workplace.  It isn't
    fair but that's the way it seems to be.
    
    There were two women in a former organization I worked in.  One was
    friendly, intelligent, respectful to others, and had a very good self
    image.  The other woman was assertive, felt like she needed to prove
    herself, not fully respectful of others, demanded the bottom line. 
    Guess what...she was a bitch and everybody knew it.  The other woman
    showed integrity...the bitchy woman lacked respect from those who
    worked for her...and guess what, she didn't last.  So much for being a
    bitch!
    
    -Jack

    
    What would you have called the "other" woman if she were a man?  

>>    But it reveals the paucity of intellect and feebleness of the rant in
>>    such cases.

    these things are evident anyways to the thinking person, no?
    
>>    What *can* we 'hope to do', Di?  is there anything to be done when
>>    some moron calls you a 'bitch' to weaken your position?  

    i don't think there's anything to be done to stop someone from being
    a moron.  their use of such a term doesn't weaken my position - it
    weakens theirs by showing what stuff they're made of.

>>I think that we (not just women) need to change the
>>perception of what is socially acceptable language to make it clear
>>that the use of such words against women is out of bounds.

    use of such words against _anyone_ should be out of bounds.
    carrying around a coffee mug that says "bitch" on it is descending
    to the level of the classless morons who misuse it, imo.

    
    
    
    The funny thing is that here we sit debating the term bitch.  I would
    rarely, if ever use the term.  I'd say say something classy like they
    (either male or female) think their crap don't stick".  But debating
    the term is just another way of avoiding discussing the context and
    getting wrapped up in the semantics.....

    .117
    
    right on, lady di.

I'm amazed at all the hoopla over the word bitch and what it means and who is
or isn't one.

Connie Chung isn't a bitch for what she did. There are adjectives to describe
her and her actions, but bitch isn't one of them.

I view a bitch as a generally spiteful and therefore negative person who often
complains. That's not Connie. I don't think it's Hillary either.

Time to move on to a different subject I think, this dog is long dead.

Doug.

    >    these things are evident anyways to the thinking person, no?
    
    Is this a veiled opinion about dear departed Gene or less-dear
    but ever-symbolicly-present Newt?
    
    >    use of such words against _anyone_ should be out of bounds.
    
    Yet the penalties exacted by such a highbrow approach do not count
    sufficiently to stop the usage in today's high-pressure world.  I was
    unable to shame Gene into regretting his usage.  Newt hasn't even
    troubled to deny his mother's word, and wouldn't be believed if he did.
    Clearly the approach you recommend is ineffective.
    
    DougO

   >>     What would you have called the "other" woman if she were a man?
    
    Why that's easy...I wouldn't but most people would call him a son of a
    bitch!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    
    Prolly an arseole

    
>>    Is this a veiled opinion about dear departed Gene or less-dear
>>    but ever-symbolicly-present Newt?

    no.

>>    I was unable to shame Gene into regretting his usage.

    "his usage"?  the woman has a car proclaiming she is one.  what's
    for him to be ashamed about?

>>  Newt hasn't even
>>  troubled to deny his mother's word, and wouldn't be believed if he did.

    i don't view Hillary Clinton as a "bitch".  perhaps Newt does.  i don't
    presume to know what reasons he has or how valid or invalid that opinion
    might be.  however, if Hillary were to run around with a coffee mug
    labeled "bitch", would it change the opinion of any of the people who
    think she is one?  i doubt it.  if the word "bitch" became virtually
    meaningless, would it change the opinion of any of the people who think
    she's a (fill-in-the-blank-with-a-new-moronic-epithet)?  i doubt it.    

>>  Clearly the approach you recommend is ineffective.

    what "approach" is that, dougo?

    
    
    I couldn't make the distinction of Hillary nor Connie seeing as I
    haven't met either of them........
    
    
    
    Mike

Gee...and to think some of ya...in the past, elsewhere...frowned on this
kind of language as representative of the inner-city youts who have no
role models...

    As far as I know, no one has yet speculated on Ms. Chung's status as a
    ho! :-) :-)
    
    -b

    Re: .114
    
    >The other woman showed integrity...the bitchy woman lacked respect
    >from those who worked for her...and guess what, she didn't last.
    
    What does this have to do with the fact that business manners are
    applicable to business and social manners are applicable to social
    settings?  "Lady" is a social distinction, not a business one.

    business manners and social manners are not totally exclusive behavoirs
    but share the same space most times. a clean line cannot be drawn.
    
    Chip

    .128
    
    I don't know where your dreamworld is, but there are many "bitches" in
    the businessworld and love to throw their proverbial weight around in
    that fashion.

    >>Gee...and to think some of ya...in the past, elsewhere...frowned on this
    >>kind of language as representative of the inner-city youts who have no
    >>role models...
    
    No...I just have problems with rap singers who refer to all inner city
    women as ho's and bitches...
    
    -Jack

    -.1 so do they!
    
      Chip

    
    This is so ridiculous.  Bitches, aggressive, assertive, throwing weight
    around, wanting to know bottom line, not acting like a lady, bla bla
    bla bla bla ad nauseum.

    
    
    
    Quit being so bitchy, Deb.  :')

    
    <-- 8^ppPpPpPPpPpPpPppppPpPpppPP

    Dear Debra:
    
    Unfortunately, assertive bitchy women become ugly to alot of men.  It's
    not fair but it's just the way it is.
    
    Affectionately,
    
    -Meaty!!

| <<< Note 227.136 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Unfortunately, assertive bitchy women become ugly to alot of men.  It's
| not fair but it's just the way it is.

	Hey Meaty!!! I want ya to stand up to those typez of menzzzezz....
because assertive women does not = bitchy...

re:.127

What's a "ho"?

Her last name's "Chung". (Or Povitch, if you want to get technical.)

>No...I just have problems with rap singers who refer to all inner city
>women as ho's and bitches...

And so do I. Although those that do seem to be referring to women in general
regardless of their locale. Is it because they feel women should be distrusted
due to their ability to seduce? (Where did that come up before? I remember!
My "Ashara" topic from the last box.)

Is it because they see women treated as objects in society? 'Ever think
they were playing "devils advocate"?

'Ever heard "Queen Latifa"? No, I guess you haven't. There's one example of a
rapper who expressed a most definite rejection of the casual reference. So
have some male rappers.

Point being, some subjective applications of the perjorative have been shown
here and the societal double-standards and hypocrisy are unquestionably
registered. Affirmative action notwithstanding.
    

    
    
    oxymoron
    
    rap music

    >What's a "ho"?
    
    A bitch in a Santa suit! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    
    -b

    Re: .129
    
    >business manners and social manners are not totally exclusive behavoirs
    
    That's not what I said.
    
    You have a set of manners that are appropriate to business.  You have a
    set of manners that are appropriate to social situations.  They are two
    different sets, regardless of any overlap.  But you should apply the
    correct set to the correct setting.

    -.1 that's what i said.

    Re: .130
    
    >but there are many "bitches" in the businessworld and love to throw 
    >their proverbial weight around in that fashion.
    
    Again, what does this have to do with the fact that business manners
    are applicable to business settings and social manners are applicable
    to social settings?  Someone with good social manners is a "lady." 
    Someone with good business manners is a valuable asset to the company.

    Correct...but being a bitch isn't a valuable asset to the company.  It
    only demonstrates that the woman is one...or the man is a son of one!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack, it's just YOUR assessment that the woman is a bitch based on her
    usage of business manners versus social manners, methinks.

	I agree with ya Deb. The impression I've gotten from his notes is any
woman who is assertive, is a bitch. I hope I am wrong, but that is the
impression I have gotten.


Glen

    And not only that, it's probably the way you feel about it too.

    I'm going to expose my mind here.  If I ever work for a woman who
    says..."You will get that report to me by such and such a time, I will 
    repond by saying, "What's the magic word?"  I will also think of her as
    a bitch or one who is in a bitchy mood.
    
    Michele and I don't allow ourselves to address each other that way, why
    should I let my boss do that?
    
    

    And not only that, you don't talk to each other that way either.

    -.1 good one!

    I know of MANY assertive women in the workplace whom I would not call
    "bitch."
    
    I know of some women in a social environment whom I would call "bitch".
    
    The term is not mutually exclusive to the environment they're in.  It's
    descriptive of how they handle themselves in the situation to which
    they find themselves in.

| <<< Note 227.149 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| I'm going to expose my mind here.  

	QUICK! Get him the the observatory! We're gonna need one hell of a
telescope to see this baby! :-)

| If I ever work for a woman who says..."You will get that report to me by such 
| and such a time, I will repond by saying, "What's the magic word?"  I will 
| also think of her as a bitch or one who is in a bitchy mood.

	Jack, would you do the same to a male boss? Just curious..

| Michele and I don't allow ourselves to address each other that way, why
| should I let my boss do that?

	So you can bring home a paycheck to Michele? :-)

  >>  I'm going to expose my mind here.

	hmmm.  er... never mind.  ;>

  >>  If I ever work for a woman who
  >>  says..."You will get that report to me by such and such a time, I will 
  >>  repond by saying, "What's the magic word?"  I will also think of her as
  >>  a bitch or one who is in a bitchy mood.
    
	one hopes that if it's a man, you will also say "What's the magic
	word?" and that you will think of him as a bastard or one who is
	in a foul mood.  is that the case?  this is your chance to be
	non-sexist, Jack - don't blow it.

| <<< Note 227.154 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>


| this is your chance to be non-sexist, Jack - don't blow it.

	You're askin an awful lot there Di....

    
    Your manager doesn't have to say "please" to you.  You are expected to
    follow his/her directions - it's part of your job.
    
    "Please" and "thank you" are polite, though, and I appreciate hearing
    them in a work environment as much as anywhere else.

...and smile when you say that, partner...

    A spiteful woman is a bitch whether in a social or business setting.
    
    A spiteful man is a son of a "Chung"!

    I disagree Debra, I expect a please and a thank you from any of my
    colleagues.  It is very little to ask.
    
    >>Jack, would you do the same to a male boss? Just curious..
    
    No....he's a boy...why should I expect it of him??

    
    
    ONLY KIDDING!!  Yes, I would say the same to him...if he addresses me
    in a condescending fashion.
    
    | Michele and I don't allow ourselves to address each other that way,
    | why
    | should I let my boss do that?
    
    >>        So you can bring home a paycheck to Michele? :-)
    
    Wrongo Reindeer breath! :-)  Figuratively getting peed on isn't in my
    job description...unless there is a depression of course! 
    
    
    -Jack

    
    I would expect please and thank you from my PEER colleagues but not
    from my MANAGER.  I work FOR, not WITH, him/her.		
    

    Deb, your manager is a transsexual?

    
    No, darlin', you're the only group of those I know 8^).

    We're actually a lot of fun to have around you know.
    
    ;-)

    
    But prolly an expensive date, 16 different drinks and all.

All those personalities and not one teetotaler?  Must be tough on the liver.

RE: .160    
    
    Sorry mz_deb... I have to disagree
    
    Courtesy is not stratified, nor should it be. 

    Not only that, good manners don't depend on your position either.

My good manners don't depend of my position, I know that.

    hoooo... that one's something to stay away from!

    Not only that, your courtesy is not stratified either.

    Re: .149
    
    >I will repond by saying, "What's the magic word?"
    
    "See that blinking?  That's your career dissipation light.  It just
    went into overdrive."
    
    A boss assigning a due date for a report isn't (usually) asking a
    favor, so "please" isn't required.  A boss giving instructions should
    have a firm, reasonable tone of voice; anything else is gravy.
    
    However, a boss who does not say "thank you" or otherwise acknowledge
    work being done is not showing good business manners.

    Lt. : Private Martin! Go dig a latrine!

    Private Martin: What's the magic word lieutenant SIR!

	SCREAM!!!!  Glenn, that caused major spillage on my terminal! Thanqs!

    
    .166
    
    Sorry, Andy, I maintain my position.
    
    See Chelsea's .171.  It is my job to do what my manager asks me to do. 
    S/he does not have to say please.  'Twould be nice, but s/he does not
    really have to do it.
    
    If another admin person asks me to do something, I DON'T have to do it
    (I do it, of course, since I'm such a nice person 8^)) because I don't
    work for him/her.  In those cases, please and thank you make a lot of
    difference whether I do it quickly and pleasantly or whether I gripe
    about it.                              
    
    I am, obviously, an ideal employee 8^).

	No, you are just ideal..............%^)

    Oh sure Teeks, hit on all the Babes on the way out.
    
    ;-)

    
    Just remember that flattery will get you everywhere.

    "say the magic word" smacks of training the little tykes to be
    polite. i'm goin' with the ladies on this one. while pleases
    and thank you's are nice, they certainly aren't mandatory
    when being asked for something by you manager.
    
    of course, if you work in Mr. Roger's neighborhood it's very different.
    
    Chip

| <<< Note 227.159 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| I disagree Debra, I expect a please and a thank you from any of my colleagues.
| It is very little to ask.

	To ask, maybe, but to expect, no. With work the way it is, people may
forget, people may have pressure from beyond. If they say have it done by X
date, then you do your best to accomadate them. Pretty simple. Yeah, life would
be grand if we all said please everytime. But it isn't realistic because life
ain't always grand.

| >>Jack, would you do the same to a male boss? Just curious..

| ONLY KIDDING!!  Yes, I would say the same to him...if he addresses me in a 
| condescending fashion.

	Jack, this is pretty funny. Lets put in what you origionally said in
.149, shall we:

    I'm going to expose my mind here.  If I ever work for a woman who
    says..."You will get that report to me by such and such a time, I will 
    repond by saying, "What's the magic word?"  I will also think of her as
    a bitch or one who is in a bitchy mood.

	No where in the above did you say anything about a condensending
fashion. You just stated her as saying get a report to you by such and such a
time. Is this condensending? I don't think so. Is it because it came from a
woman? You'll have to answer that one. You took her statement and she became a
bitch. This troubles me and I hope ya can clear this up. 

| | Michele and I don't allow ourselves to address each other that way,
| | why should I let my boss do that?

| >>        So you can bring home a paycheck to Michele? :-)

| Wrongo Reindeer breath! :-)  

	Jack, when did you get that close to know.... oh never mind.

| Figuratively getting peed on isn't in my job description...

	Jack, you have yet to determine how a simple statement without a please
added in can make a woman be a bitch. Until ya do that it's hard to tell if
your getting peed on is a reality or just something you threw in from assertive
women being bitches.

| unless there is a depression of course!

	Won't it be depressing if you get fired???


Glen

>>Oh sure Teeks, hit on all the Babes on the way out.
    
>>    ;-)

	I don't plan to hit any of them, just tittilate.... %^)

	I kind of like my version ...... %^)

Please stop this rathole.

Thank you.

    Glen:
    
    You are correct.  Let's just say I can pick up a condescending attitude
    when I hear it.  She doesn't always have to say please or
    thankyou...just have an energetic, positive demeanor.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, now lets get into the meat of it all. You pick up a condensending
manner, she is now a bitch. How about looking into WHY she may have been
condensending in the first place? It could be anything from your performance as
a worker to her just getting out of a meeting where she got raked over the
coals. Maybe if ya didn't assume she is a bitch and looked into the why's, life
would be easier.


Glen

	condensending - what a writer does when he runs out of material
			in the final chapter of a novel

    Glen:
    
    When everybody in the organization echoes the same sentiments and said
    person has been told of problems by personnel, it stands to reason
    that there is a serious trend going on here.
    
    My attitude is...please keep your dirty laundry at home where your
    husband and children have to deal with it.  If you have insecurities or
    a low self image, please talk to a friend or to EAP.  This is a place
    of business...we have no time for the crap...particularly when we have
    had eleven losses in a row!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    
    Just as long as you're aware that your condescending attitude
    perception meter may be wrong.......
    
    
    
    
    Mike
    
    

    Highly unlikely...said person cannot hold a friend professionally or
    socially.
    
    You will judge a tree by it's fruit!

    its, no apostrophe.
    
    Jack, you know everything about her personal life?  Amazing!

    You're correct...sorry DI!!!!!

    
    DI???
    
    Boy???? Whachoo be smokin????
    

| <<< Note 227.187 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| When everybody in the organization echoes the same sentiments and said person 
| has been told of problems by personnel, it stands to reason that there is a 
| serious trend going on here.

	Now Jack, this is hardly like the scenerio you first put forth. You
went from if anyone tells you to have something done by a certain date without
saying please, is a bitch, to her saying the same thing, but in a condensending 
manner, to now including other people have gone to personnel. My how this story 
has changed from it's beginning. I never would have guessed that you had a 
particular person was on your mind when the words said:

    If I ever work for a woman who says..."You will get that report to me by 
    such and such a time, 

	Why couldn't you just say it was someone you knew? The above makes it
sound like ANY person who says that to you is a bitch. 

	But with that aside, let's deal with the PERSON whom you are refering
to. There are STILL many factors that could come into play here. It could be
anything from her really being a bitch, down to other factors playing into her
decision making. Those factors could very well be management. Have you yourself
spoken to her about this, or have you just put the label bitch on her? I have
friends who people have asked me if they were gay, because they fit the image.
Asking the person in question about it would dispell this thought. Go with
facts Jack, not pure perceptions.

| My attitude is...please keep your dirty laundry at home where your husband and
| children have to deal with it. If you have insecurities or a low self image, 
| please talk to a friend or to EAP. This is a place of business...we have no 
| time for the crap...particularly when we have had eleven losses in a row!

	Jack, have you ever said this to her? If not, what good is it to think
this way if ya don't back it or live by it?



Glen

    
    DI?  
    
    Well, I _am_ tall and blonde...

    
    
    <------
    
     In your dreams....
    
     :) :)
    

    I just said that because lady Di is our rhetoric and dialetologist for
    the box...always correcting me and what not...

	<-----------

	I thought that was in my dreams.......%^)

    
    I could be tall and blonde!  All I need is some peroxide and an inch or
    two of extra height.
    
    Three inches MAYBE.  No more.
    
    All right, perhaps four or five, but definitely no more than six.
    
    Whose definition of tall are we using, anyway?  Huh?

	I think you are a tall order.......%^)

    Note 227.200 deleted by the author for recognizable brain damage.
    
    -b

    Jack, 
    
    You're absolutely right that simple good manners is the right way to
    go, and encourages a productive work atmosphere.  So, you may be right
    about this woman.
    
    But, frankly, you strike me as the boy who cried wolf. You are the
    current (say, last year or so) champeen victim in this conference. You
    endlessly complain about how people are out to get you in specific or
    white males in general.  
    
    You seem downright miserable, and you don't seem very interested in
    considering some personal responsibility for all the gloom and doom
    that seems to surround your life.
    
    Kit

	Kit.... good call. 

     >>>       Kit.... good call.
    
    No, unfortunately, incorrect call.  I can appreciate your perception.
    Just so you'll understand better, I am an individual contributor and
    always will be...therefore, I am happy and don't feel PERSONALLY
    victimized.  I don't feel like I've been screwed in a direct way.
    
    Most of my "victim" rhetoric centers around the laughable hypocrisy
    that is going on by the current left.  Believe me, I echo the
    sentiments of white men, white women and ALOT...I repeat...ALOT of
    minorities in this country.  They see current quota policies as
    demeaning toward women and minorities, discriminatory in nature, two
    faced, and over all bad policy.  I need not remind you that Bill
    Clintons cabinet is proof positive of the fruits of Affirmative Action
    policies.  He proved AA has an ugly head and hence demeaned the
    integrity of the Executive branch. 
    
    When you delegate responsibities like these on class rather than
    competence, you weaken the ingenuity and stamina of a whole nation.
    You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    
    I repeat as I have before...I believe in EQUALITY FOR ALL...you do not
    believe in equality for all.  You think you're being a good samaritan
    but what you are really doing is making America become a mediocre
    entity.  I just hope you don't have to kick yourself in the ass
    Kit...when your grandchildren live in a second rate industrial country
    because that is what this current policy is leading us to...mediocrity
    instead of excellence like we should be!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack, 
    
    Actually it's your constant whining about *other people* complaining
    about victimization that makes your *own* endless "I am the victim"
    rhetoric especially annoying.
    
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
    
    Kit

    ... clinton proved AA has an ugly side? boy Jack, you really
    grasp for vaporous and opinionated "fact" when you're trying to 
    make a point.
    
    could it be, say, he made some bad decisions? naw, to undramatic
    for ya.
    
    Chip

    re: .205
    
    Don't get it do you, Chip?  By definition, a non-white male is
    unqualified.
    
    So, who are these dreadful choices:
    
    Mike Espey -- seemed to be making modest attempts to reform the pork
    cesspool that has been Agriculutre for decades, but proved to the same
    old boy -- in up to his ears with those he's supposed to regulate. Good
    riddance.
    
    Ron Brown -- Too smooth by half for me, the sleek corporate type at
    home in any color skin as long as it's draped in a $1000 suit. But,
    hey, we're supposed to be judging on skill and productivity and only
    the most rabidly partisan would suggest he hasn't been effective and in
    the thick of the chaotic world of international commerce.
    
    Helen O'Leary -- an absolute star, getting control of the rock-bottom
    Energy Dept, something most people said just couldn't be done.
    
    Jocelyn Elders -- right on the money, as far as I'm concerned. A wise
    and effective user of the  bully pulpit that is the only real power of
    her position.  Told too much truth to be tolerated.  No doubt you
    disagree with her positions. Too bad. That doesn't make her a bad
    choice.
    
    Who else?
    
    And what about the white guys:
    
    Warren Christopher -- Ahh, um, nice guy. Warren, please call home.
    
    Lloyd Bentsen -- able and effective, if a bit too much the Texas
    Bourbon for me
    
    Robert Reich -- got all the right ideas about training, trying to
    regain a little lost ground for the middle class. Can't seem to do
    anything about it. Doesn't even seem to know the address of the White
    House.   Back to Cambridge, Bob...
    
    William Perry -- seems to be proving that a bright technocrat can
    really handle the DoD, that you don't need a pol. Remains to be seen
    who could really break through the bureaucratic intertia of DoD.
    
    Anyways, get the point, Jack?  
    
    Kit

    Chip:
    
    Clinton bent hell over backwards to get a female in the AG's office. 
    Bill Clinton was determined to get a woman of color his cabinet...hence
    we got the absolute very best choice in Dr. Elders.
    
    The difference Kit and others, is that their whining is based on some
    legitamate and some illigitamate evidence.  My whining of
    discrimination is based on sheer fact...government mandated policy!
    
    So we got the arsonist of WACO, the condom queen, the agriculture
    secretary who is up on charges, Lord Benson who is on the verge of
    senility...yes we got a good representation of what America is...no, we
    got a consortium of criminals, elitists, and nincompoops!   The only
    one who I thought went above and beyond was Dee Dee Myers.  Now here
    was a woman who carried her weight, did it fairly well, and
    interestingly enough, was not given the respect or title that her
    position merited.  Just goes to show you how hypocritical this
    administration is and their outlook on women!
    
    -Jack

    re: .207 
    
    Maybe your whining is based on a sincere perception of things as you
    see them. In that case, I believe you are mistaken.
    
    Maybe your whining is just another weapon you use to fight policies and
    attitudes with which you disagree -- it's so much simpler to cry foul
    than to argue issues on rational grounds.  
    
    Actually, your whining is probably a messy combination of the two, just
    like the messy world out there that you miraculously see in such simple
    black and white, and in such concentrated conspiracy against you, and
    against truth and justice.
    
    Don't much matter. You're still the pot calling the kettle black.
    
    Kit

    
    Well, I agree with you about Ron Brown.  He has scored more points
    with me than anybody else in this administration.
    
    But Elders !  Oh, please, Kit !  She'd be more at home in SOAPBOX
    than in the SG job.
    
      bb

    Kit:
    
    I hate to disappoint you but the majority of Americans from all walks
    of life feel the same way I do.  
    
    I'm trying to drive it home as logically as I can...anytime you
    discriminate FOR somebody, you discriminate AGAINST somebody else.  Why
    is this such a hard concept to follow?!  Hypocrisy is the main issue
    here...not victimization.
    
    -Jack (Who is not feeling victimized)
    

    -1 knowing that "fact" certainly must make you warm and fuzzy.
    
       it must be true...
    
       Chip

| <<< Note 227.203 by SELL1::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| I am happy and don't feel PERSONALLY victimized. I don't feel like I've been 
| screwed in a direct way.

	Baaahaaahaahaaaa!!!!  You don't feel personally victimized, and ya
don't feel like ya have been screwed in a direct way. The trouble with what you
said is you still leave a big window opened for feeling ya got screwed. How
about decorating that window for us or shut it.

| Most of my "victim" rhetoric centers around the laughable hypocrisy that is 
| going on by the current left.  

	Jack, you've spoken about many of your ideal, and have been wrong on
them. It all is laughable, but it has nothing to do with the left.

| Believe me, I echo the sentiments of white men, white women and ALOT...I 
| repeat...ALOT of minorities in this country.  

	And the reason all minorities aren't there????

| They see current quota policies as demeaning toward women and minorities, 
| discriminatory in nature, two faced, and over all bad policy.  

	Jack, in each minority case you mentioned in the past all had to do
with you. You were passed over for a job because of a minority, you have to
rent to minorities even if ya didn't feel like it, etc. It spells victim to me.

Glen

    Jack,
    
    I'd be careful about accusations of hypocrisy, if I were you.
    
    Kit

| <<< Note 227.207 by SELL1::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>




| The difference Kit and others, is that their whining is based on some 
| legitamate and some illigitamate evidence. My whining of discrimination 
| is based on sheer fact...government mandated policy!

	Ok, lets look at your sheer fact. We'll just deal with the major ones
for now. Go through the list for major cabinet appointees who are considered
minorites, and then tell us who would have been the better choice. It will help
illistrate if you really know what you're talking about, or if yer talkin out
yer butt. :-)



Glen

| <<< Note 227.210 by SELL1::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| I hate to disappoint you but the majority of Americans from all walks
| of life feel the same way I do.

	Can ya offer where you got this info from or is it just another Jack
Martin prophecy?


Glen

    
    
| I hate to disappoint you but the majority of Americans from all walks
| of life feel the same way I do.
    
    
    Mebbe so, mebbe not.  Feeling the pulse of the talk show mob isn't the
    same as facts. Even such a result from a legitimate poll with non-loaded
    questions isn't the point.  No doubt a majority of Germans in 1935
    agreed with Hitler that the Jews were the problem. No doubt a majority
    of people in 10th century Europe thought the earth was flat.  Didn't
    make either of those things true.
    
    Worry less about opinion. Worry more about facts and truth.
    
    Speaking of majorities, this is about the first time in 8+ years in the
    'box that I didn't feel in the decided minority in a heated political
    debate.  I'm too much the contrarian to feel all that comfortable in a
    string where those who agree with me outnumber those who disagree.
    Jack, don't you think you should round up some of the troops? ;-)
    
    Kit 
    

re .207:

>    Bill Clinton was determined to get a woman of color his cabinet...hence
>    we got the absolute very best choice in Dr. Elders.

Since when is the Surgeon General in the cabinet?

    Can't agree wholeheartedly with Jack's thesis here, but I daresay most
    people could agree that the Clinton administration is suffering an
    unusually high level of turnover.  However, I still applaud the effort
    to bring more non-WASPs into the higher levels of government.  The
    problem is that a teeny, tiny bigot still hides inside many people
    (and this does not include those who have a huge, raging bigot inside
    that they don't even both to hide).  Until that teeny tiny bigot and
    the huge raging ones can be brought more under control, affirmative
    action will probably continue to exist.
    
    BTW, what the heck was this topic supposed to be about?  We've strayed
    so far, I forget!
    
    M.
    

    will Wang Chung make a comeback?

    One can only hope NOT!<

    -1 agreed!
    
    now answer the b'day question before we hunt you down and kill you!

    M:
    
    Yes, so what your saying is we have to save ourselves...from ourselves.

    -1 huh?

 >>   Until that teeny tiny bigot and
 >>   the huge raging ones can be brought more under control, affirmative
 >>   action will probably continue to exist.
    
    Like I said, we have to save ouselves from ourselves!

    .68
    
    and that's 'Mrs.' Gaskell to you, Jack.
    
     >>>What policies in particular that Gingrich supports do you find
        offensive?  Do you find the status quo more appealing?  Just
        curious.<<<
        
    
    If you kind gentlmen could manage to sit in your chairs and relinquish
    your plans to hunt long legged long necked wildlife for a moment, I will 
    summon up my meager upper body strength and type out a few words.
                       
    Gingrich has given a couple of classic examples just lately of why I 
    feel justified in calling him a loud mouth booby.  His comments on
    the difference between men and women would be worthy of the "A-list"
    on the Comedy Channel, if it were ment as humor.  His plans to deny 
    LEGAL aliens access to welfare makes me mad.  As I have said before,
    if he wants to save tax money let him take on the criminal waste and 
    graft in the military, it would yield better returns for his time and
    effort.
      
    He opens his mouth and spits out what ever spite he has in him and then 
    tries to make it policy. The man is out of control and IMHO has a 
    bi-polar disorder--and as bi-polar disorders are passed father-to-daughter,
    mother-to-son, that also explains a lot of his mothers behavior.
    
   
    

   . His comments on the difference between men and women 
    
    Which were? Feel free to paraphrase, but expect to be checked for
    accuracy.
    
    .His plans to deny LEGAL aliens access to welfare makes me mad.
    
     He currently has no plans to deny legal aliens welfare benefits.
    
    .The man is out of control
    
     Actually, he is in control. He's in control of the house of
    representatives of the united states of america.
    
    .and IMHO has a bi-polar disorder
    
     And what makes you qualified to offer this diagnosis? I thought so.
    
    The only one spitting out "spite" or venom is you. You are the one who
    is rabidly attacking the man. You are the one impugning a man who by
    all appearances you know precious little about. How often have you
    watched him either in action or giving a speech since, say, Jan 1 of
    this year? Dec 1 of last year? Nov 8 of last year?
    
     My opinion, which is purely a reflection my interpretation of your
    notes, is that you are reacting viscerally to the Speaker. You despise
    him because he is (gasp!) a republican and because you base your
    opinions on him from interpretive reporting sources only. I don't think
    you really know squat about the man or what he's trying to do, and
    you've consistently been evasive when cornered about your apparent
    prejudice. You have failed utterly to present a cogent, articulate
    criticism of the man's performance or philosophy, and one can presume
    one of two causes: a) you are incapable or b) you don't know what
    you're talking about. You'd appear to be more on the ball if you so
    much as parroted mr. bill and DouO. Instead you blather about how Newt
    is the manifestation of all that is evil and scamper away when
    confronted with facts in contradiction to your closely held emotional
    opinions or challenges to the same.
    
     The Doctah

    Dear MRS. Gaskell:
    
    We can't give welfare to illegal aliens anymore...we're broke.
    
    Will you people PLEASE breaks down the paradigm in your head about
    spending money we DO NOT HAVE!  Please!!  You are bankrupting the
    company.  As far as streamlining spending in the military, great...I'm
    with you all the way!  Provided it is prudent!
    
    -Jack

    Re: .227
    
    >We can't give welfare to illegal aliens anymore
    
    Did she say "illegal"?  I thought she said "LEGAL."

    Ooops, my mistake!

          <<< Note 227.226 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    The only one spitting out "spite" or venom is you. You are the one who
>    is rabidly attacking the man. You are the one impugning a man who by
>    all appearances you know precious little about... 
    
>   You despise
>    him because he is (gasp!) a (whatever) and because you base your
>    opinions on him from interpretive reporting sources only. I don't think
>    you really know squat about the man or what he's trying to do, and

Sounds like standard 'Box stuff to me. P&K material, to be sure.

    Sounds to me like Connie Chung needs a warm moist rogering.

    
    You'd like that, wouldn't you?  :^)
    

    .231
    
    warm moist rogering prolly wouldn't do any good, how long is it now that
    she's been trying to get chunged?

     Mebbe she oughtta try it with a man who doesn't shoot blanks. ;-)

Glenn, get an E-mail address for Connie and fire off a request that
she incorporate the phrase into a news story.

    .Make it a fad! 
    
     he's already made it his obsession. But I know where he's coming from.
    When I wasn't getting any, that's all I could talk about, too. ;-)

    .236
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    {Ace Ventura Fake Laugh}

While yer at it, ask her to work "Come to me, my jungle friends"
into the story too.  I'd tune in for that.

    Rrrrrree-hee-he-he-he-ahee-heeally?

    .227
    
    When I was a LEGAL Alien, I had to pay social security as well
    as every other tax.  How can you justify charging someone
    for something they can't claim against?  America isn't short 
    of money, not even close.  There are many things we could cut
    down on and save more than the total cost of welfare.  E.G.
    in Washington there are at least two large buildings just
    used for housing defective office furniture.  The buildings are
    heated and staffed by security, etc.  This office furniture was delivered
    defective but there is no one authorized to send it back so we, the tax
    payer, end up subsidizing the office furniture supplier.
    
    You don't seem to mind giving something a company like Steelcase 
    (I don't know it's them really) a million or so dollars, but you do 
    mind giving it to the poor.  Have you ever heard of Dennis More (Monty 
    Python) stole from the poor, gave to the rich...silly Bi*ch.
                           

    ]How can you justify charging someone for something they can't claim 
    ]against? 
    
     We can't, so we don't.
    
    ]America isn't short of money, not even close.
    
     W#ell, we're certainly not short of people who want to spend more than
    we take in.

    
    Not short of money, huh ?  Got a few spare trillion you can lend us ?
    
      bb

    Dear Mrs. Gaskell:
    
    Remember what I said about the Paradigm?  You strike me as the perfect
    candidate for class envy.  Look, we don't have the money you think we
    do.  We need to streamline everything, INCLUDING welfare.  We need to
    stop sending the wrong message that there is free money in America.  
    
    -Jack

    .226
    
    
    Well Mr. Wahoo::Levesque,  I'm a republican too!!!
    
    As one who seriously studied psychology for years, and almost made
    a mistake of entering the mental health field, believe me it doesn't
    take much to recognize a manic.  
    
    And as for Newt-the-Nut proposing to deny legal aliens access to welfare, 
    you may not know he had plans to do this but CNN does, they ran the story
    and had film of him saying it.  He had to retract the remark later, but
    he should be used to that by now.
    
    I don't think Newt is evil, he's just a baffoon, but a dangerous one. 
    He's not only dangerous to the rights of EVERY ONE OF US, he's also
    dangerous to the success of the Republican party and their chances
    in the next election.  
    
    I choose not to write reams of stuff on the man's performance as I only have
    a 10 minute break, and I am here to work, not argue the toss with Noters.
    

    Re: .243
    
    >]How can you justify charging someone for something they can't claim 
    >]against? 
    >
    >We can't, so we don't.
    
    Unless you're the State of Massachusetts.  (Income tax paid by people
    who work in MA but live outside the state.)

I really have to laugh when I read reams of platitudes about the virtues of
hard work, then only have to open another *internal* notes file and find
out the true skinny.

And if I said it once I've said 1000 times: people are unconscious of others
difficulties even when they are going through the ____ themselves.

 >>   And if I said it once I've said 1000 times: people are unconscious of
 >>  others difficulties...
    
    Funny, that's what I've said about aborted babies while they're getting
    asphixiated....but that's neither here nor there!!!!

>but that's neither here nor there!!!!

Well you got that right.

    .Well Mr. Wahoo::Levesque,  I'm a republican too!!!
    
     Really, now? And just which republican tenet do you support? Surely
    you can find at least one. From your statements, one would more readily
    believe you are more enamored (enamoured) :-) with democrats.
    
    . And as for Newt-the-Nut proposing to deny legal aliens access to welfare,
    .you may not know he had plans to do this but CNN does
    
     He had once proposed such a thing, but others pointed out problems
    with the idea so he decided it was a bad idea and abandoned it. Now I
    suppose that he's not allowed ever to make mistakes, that every single
    thing he ever thinks, says or does has to be absolutely perfect, but
    the results of such stringent requirements are the do nothing, vapid
    politicians who have gotten us into this mess. It's going to take
    talent, imagination, and true grit to save this country, none of which
    comes in neat and quiet packaging (lest it get run over by the grand
    march of lemmings.) You seem both ignorant of Newt's ideas, and afraid
    of his power. I strongly suggest that you consider watching Newt
    without the heavy spinning action of the newtwork "news". Watch C-SPAN.
    See the man for yourself. I think you'll find out he isn't anywhere
    near the demon or madman you've allowed yourself to believe.
    
    .I don't think Newt is evil, he's just a baffoon, but a dangerous one.
    
     I don't think you could be more wrong. To be honest, I used to
    strongly dislike the guy until I started watching C-SPAN after the
    election. (I figured I might as well learn about the guy since he was
    going to be speaker.) What I've found is that the man and the media's
    portrayal of the man are very far apart. Just another indication of how
    the media can control what we think if we let them.
    
    .he's also dangerous to the success of the Republican party and 
    .their chances in the next election.
    
     Only if he gets bogged down in squabbles over issues that needlessly
    expend political capital. And I think he's shrewd enough not to. But
    we'll see.
    
    .I choose not to write reams of stuff on the man's performance as I only
    .have a 10 minute break, and I am here to work,
    
     This is a very popular excuse used by those who have no substance
    behind their accusations and negative opinions. Are you using it that
    way? I don't know, but from all your notes, you really haven't had much
    substantive to say against the man, except that in your quasi-educated
    opinion he's a nut. Sorry, but that really doesn't hold much water.
    
     The Doctah
    

    I think the more Newt talks the more danger he is to the Republicans.
    Someone needs to put him on a leash (perhaps Dole). I also think he
    makes the repubs look like fools with his thoughts. He is making
    Clinton look good!
    
    Just my 2 cents and my opinion only.

    >He had once proposed such a thing, but others pointed out problems
    >with the idea so he decided it was a bad idea and abandoned it. Now I
    >suppose that he's not allowed ever to make mistakes, that every single
    >thing he ever thinks, says or does has to be absolutely perfect, but
    >the results of such stringent requirements are the do nothing, vapid
    >politicians who have gotten us into this mess.
    
    I don't have a problem with this statement.  However, why is it that
    when Clinton does the same thing (proposes an idea, people point out
    problems, he abandons it), he's accused of waffling and such?

     It's a matter of perception, Debra. Clinton is perceived to have no
    principles that he will not abandon no matter what. He seems to be poll
    driven. And it seems that he flip flops with great frequency.
    Occasionally changing one's mind is not a big deal, IMO. But if you are
    elected to do 10 things and you flip flop on 8 of them, that's
    problematic. If Gingrich decided that he didn't really want to reduce
    spending, didn't really want to reform welfare, etc afterall, that
    would be a problem. But to consider a number of alternatives, such as
    10 different things we could do to cut welfare, and eliminating one or
    two of them is not a problem. If you aren't considering numerous
    aspects of each issue, you aren't being imaginative enough, IMO.
    Clinton's flip/flops seem not to be so much a matter of changing his
    mind about implementation details so much as changing his mind about
    entire endeavors (like, "elect me and I'll give you a middle class tax
    cut," to "no tax cut, actually a tax increase," to the post mid-term
    debacle "um, yeah, we can do a tax cut.") Hello?!! Who's holding the
    rudder here?!!

    
    Perception, I see.

    
    The point about newtricious overexposure is a good one.  Up to a
    point, ink is a good thing.  But I have to say I prefer Dole's
    temper to Newt's.  But, hey, let him bask - they waited 40 years !
    
      bb

    Re: Clinton...
    
    Bill Clinton already had a history of leadership in Arkansas.  He was
    already known as a liberal spender and cleaved to socialist ideologies.
    Therefore, anything the guy said, fair or not, was open to scrutiny.
    
    I'm sorry but I don't see Newt as a danger.  Some of you have made the
    mistake of believing the status quo in spending, etc. is the norm and
    the fact that Newt talks of cleaning house is dangerous.  Not so!!  If
    Newt is a big mouth or is blunt in his answers...that's fine by me. 
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 227.257 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| I'm sorry but I don't see Newt as a danger.  

	I KNEW you'd think that. :-)

| Some of you have made the mistake of believing the status quo in spending, 
| etc. is the norm and the fact that Newt talks of cleaning house is dangerous.

	Jack, have you been hiding away or something? I don't recall ever
seeing a note from anyone who has said they don't want to cut down on
government spending, and that many of the programs/people we have now couldn't
be made better by a house cleaning. I think where people DO make points is the
level that cuts will be made, how uncaring he is towards people. Welfare needs
to be reformed in a big way. He has some good ideas about it. He also has some
very bad ones. Not giving welfare to teens is not going to do anything to stop
teen pregnancy. For him to think this is not dealing with reality. For him to
say women in the ditches could get infections and such, is stupid. How come
they would be more likely to get these things while the man wouldn't? I think
if you ask, you would find that most people view Newt as a danger based more on
reasons like this, than the ones you implied. The very ones you've been
implying for quite some time now, even though people have constantly been
telling you otherwise.


Glen

| Not so!!  If
| Newt is a big mouth or is blunt in his answers...that's fine by me.

| -Jack

    Glen:  This is good.  It will put the onus on the private sector and
    the church.  Americas teets are dried up Glen!
    
    -Jack

    RE: .258
    
    Have taken Mark's suggestion and watched C-SPAN??
    

| <<< Note 227.260 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| Have taken Mark's suggestion and watched C-SPAN??

	Andy, I watch C-Span a lot.


Glen

    Newt is dangerous. He's gonna pull that federal teet out of a lot of
    mouths, and all they'll have to do is scream and carry on (like you've
    been hearing.) Go get 'em Newt, you loquacious little cherub!
    
    -b

    Why are the last 100+ notes in the Connie Chung topic?
    

 Doesn't that belong in the things to wonder about topic? ;-)

	She's popular!!!

    So was Anita Bryant!!

| <<< Note 227.266 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| So was Inertia Bryant!!



	But Connie hasn't had a pie smashed in her face! :-)

    CC is no worse, or better than most of the other "talking heads" on
    the network nooz. If she hadn't done the "whisper in my ear" thing, 
    one of the others would have. THey all have it in for the Newtster, 
    and as far as they are concerned, any dirty tricks are fair in the 
    idealogical war they are waging.
    
    The about to be uncorked deluge of OJmania will soon kep them all
    busy...

  Where do you guys get this stuff about the left wing bias of the news.

  I was wondering, if they are biased are you ready to admit that it's because
of ratings and that's what people want to here or is there some sort of giant
conspiracy?

  If so, who runs the conspiracy and how does it work?

  I think there is no conspiracy and Networks are driven by ratings alone.

  George

    There's no need for conspiracies with so many two watt light bulbs
    around.

>  I was wondering, if they are biased are you ready to admit that it's because
>of ratings and that's what people want to here or is there some sort of giant
>conspiracy?

Ratings would not explain why they consistently go out of their way to 
manipulate and distort the facts to support a certain 'bias'.

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 227.271 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>Ratings would not explain why they consistently go out of their way to 
>manipulate and distort the facts to support a certain 'bias'.

  Sure it would. Lots of journalists get their shot at Network News and a
few are picked to be on news programs as anchors or reporters in such programs
as Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, etc. 

  If people tune in and watch the show, then ratings go up. If they don't like
what they see, ratings go down.

  If one show has a left wing bias and one show has a right wing bias then
after the novelty wore off it seems that the one people favored would do better
in ratings and have more of a tendency to succeed. 

  If left leaning news programs are doing better in the ratings then it would
follow that more people want to hear those types of reports than right leaning
programs.

  Or to put it another way, why do Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips make it on
commercial TV while Pat Buchannan can't get buy without government funding
through PBS?

  George

    
    <-------
    
    
    When was the last time you saw an NRA commercial on network TV??
    

>  If left leaning news programs are doing better in the ratings then it would
>follow that more people want to hear those types of reports than right leaning
>programs.

They can air any type of show they want which gets them the best ratings.
That's not bias, that's business.

It's the deliberate deception that demonstrates their bias (or are you suggesting
that the deceptive practices are for purely business purposes?)

Doug.

RE <<< Note 227.273 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

>    When was the last time you saw an NRA commercial on network TV??
    
  If the NRA is not advertising on network TV it's only because they have
chosen not to buy time on Network TV.

  But what point are you trying to make? Most advertising dollars come from
companies pitching products, not from political groups.

  George

    
    George - no you are incorrect.  Network TV refused their ads, as is
            public knowledge.  But they DID have to show political ads
            they sponsored during the election.  But no, networks do
            indeed have the right to refuse you or anybody ad time.
    
    As to ratings, the latest thing is the "Crossfire" style mudwrestling.
    Get opinionated people to babble simultaneously a mixture of left/right
    rhetoric interspersed with pithy insults and jabbering at some
    befuddled guests.  Lots of copycats of this format.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 227.274 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>It's the deliberate deception that demonstrates their bias (or are you suggesting
>that the deceptive practices are for purely business purposes?)

  Well I'm not sure which deceptions you are talking about but here again if
programs with liberal deceptions do better than programs with conservative
deceptions that would suggest that people would rather watch liberal shows than
conservative shows. 

  Are you saying that people would rather hear the conservative point of view
and would watch conservatives over liberals but the networks will not let
people with those points of view on the air?

  That's nuts, the network will let anyone on the air if they pull a larger
share in their time slot than anyone else.

  George

Still wondering why NO straight news shows are credited with being 
right-leaning...

RE                  <<< Note 227.278 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Still wondering why NO straight news shows are credited with being 
>right-leaning...

  There aren't any because of the giant left wing conspiracy to dominate the
nightly news and prevent the conservative point of view from being at all
costs. 

  George

    George:
    
    Dan Rather is to CBS like Johnny Carson was to NBC.  Dan Rather calls
    the shots and Dan Rather despises the right!  Commie Chung...we all
    know about her.
    
    Watch CSPAN!
    
    -Jack

>  Well I'm not sure which deceptions you are talking about but here again if
>programs with liberal deceptions do better than programs with conservative
>deceptions that would suggest that people would rather watch liberal shows than
>conservative shows. 

Whether the public likes liberal or conservative programing is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not the mainstream media is liberal. Evidence of this
can be found in their actions beyond simple business decisions.

If they were conservative they might well provide deceptive conservative 
information but they don't. 

Deceptions: Quoting statistics manipulated for the liberal slant. the 43:1 is
a good example. If a conservative group stated that a person was 20 time
less likely to be a victim of crime if he/she kept a gun in the house do
you think the media would use it over and over again without checking into
its validity or not? They do this all the time with 'liberalspeak', but come
from a conservative slant and it becomes 'an investigative story'.

>  Are you saying that people would rather hear the conservative point of view
>and would watch conservatives over liberals but the networks will not let
>people with those points of view on the air?

And you talk about other people being off the topic ...  sheeeeeesh!

But to address your question: The networks screen what they allow
on the air. Ever wonder why all the station editorials are liberal in nature?
Ever wonder why you rarely see a conservative rebutal?

Bluntly put, if it's liberal in nature it is accepted with open arms by
mainstream media; if it is conservative in nature it has a poor chance of 
ever seeing the light of day.

C-Span is the exception as thier is no manipulation of the events.
No model rocket engines under the fenders, no 'just between you and me',
no "statistics" ...

Doug.

                     <<< Note 227.275 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  If the NRA is not advertising on network TV it's only because they have
>chosen not to buy time on Network TV.

	The NRA has attempted to buy time on all three major networks.
	Their ads have been refused by all three major networks.

Jim

    <<< Note 227.281 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>Deceptions: Quoting statistics manipulated for the liberal slant. the 43:1 is
>a good example. If a conservative group stated that a person was 20 time
>less likely to be a victim of crime if he/she kept a gun in the house do
>you think the media would use it over and over again without checking into
>its validity or not? They do this all the time with 'liberalspeak', but come
>from a conservative slant and it becomes 'an investigative story'.

	Another good case in point was the recent hoax perpetrated by
	the supposed manufacturer of "Black Rhino" ammo. He didn't have
	the required licenses, he didn't have a manufacturing facility,
	he made up a few rounds from Winchester and Federal components
	and the electronic media went into a frenzy about this "devastating"
	bullet that was going to hit the stores "tommorrow".

	Only ABC's Nightline bothered to even research the issue, and when
	they did they uncovered all of these facts. This is to ABC News'
	credit. None of the OTHER network news shows even acknowledged
	ABC's revelations.

	No agenda indicated here, right?

	Tayna Metaska said it best, "If I were to issue a news release claiming
	to have invented a car that went from 0 to 60 in one second, would
	you broadcast it before making me prove it?"


Jim

    /If the NRA is not advertising on network TV it's only because they have
    /chosen not to buy time on Network TV.
    
     No, you dumb son of unmarried people. It's because the major networks
    refuse to allow them to buy time. Not that you'll see your way clear to
    finding that to be evidence of any bias or anything but that's the
    fact, Jack.
    

    <-------------
    
    Ummmmm.....
    
    Excuse me.....  is that with your mod hat on or off???

RE    <<< Note 227.280 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Dan Rather is to CBS like Johnny Carson was to NBC.  Dan Rather calls
>    the shots and Dan Rather despises the right!  Commie Chung...we all
>    know about her.
    
  This note sums up the previous notes the best. That is exactly my point.

  The reason Johnny Carson was so valuable to NBC was that people loved Johnny
Carson and wanted to watch his show. The reason other shows always died when
they went up against Carson is because people didn't want to watch them instead
of watching Johnny.

  So if the media has a liberal bias and if it's for the same reason that
Johnny was so valuable to NBC then it must be that people would rather hear the
liberal point of view. 

  I guess you right wingers are not as popular as you thought. As soon as the
liberal majority that is driving TV news ratings finds out that the GOP can't
cut their taxes without chopping spending that benefits the majority the GOP is
going to be taking a hike for another 40 years. 

  George 

>  So if the media has a liberal bias and if it's for the same reason that
>Johnny was so valuable to NBC then it must be that people would rather hear the
>liberal point of view. 

So do you beleive that the mainstream media would deliberately fabricate
information of liberal leanings to satisfy its' customers?

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 227.287 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>So do you believe that the mainstream media would deliberately fabricate
>information of liberal leanings to satisfy its' customers?

  I believe that the mainstream media would put what ever pulls high ratings
on TV.

  - If liberal bias pulls ratings, you will see liberal bias.

  - If conservative bias pulls ratings, you will see conservative bias. 

  - If goats driving go carts while blowing farts pulls ratings you will see
    goats who've been eating beans driving go carts.

  So regardless of why there may be liberal bias, if it is there then it is
only there because that's what people are willing to see.

  And if what you say is true and the majority of people want to watch news
with a liberal bias, that should be seen as a warning bell to those who hold
the conservative point of view.

  George

                     <<< Note 227.288 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I believe that the mainstream media would put what ever pulls high ratings
>on TV.

	One thing we seem to be neglecting in all this talk of "ratings"
	is the fact the ratings for the major networks have been declining
	for a number of years. The networks blame it on cable, but maybe
	we should ask WHY people would rather watch cable than the networks.

Jim

>No, you dumb son of unmarried people

And somebody got upset about "elitist".

Where's Ms. DesMaisons (now) when you need her?

RE    <<< Note 227.289 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	One thing we seem to be neglecting in all this talk of "ratings"
>	is the fact the ratings for the major networks have been declining
>	for a number of years. The networks blame it on cable, but maybe
>	we should ask WHY people would rather watch cable than the networks.

  Sure, ask all you want but when you take a look at conservative news programs
such as Pat Buchannan's programs or Robert Novack's program you don't see
people flooding to watch them instead of the nightly news. 

  Yes there is an alternative and yes people are watching other things but the
networks are experimenting with News programs all the time and they seem to be
pulling in decent numbers. Most of the news magazines have started since cable.

  Also, do you feel that CNN which is where the nightly news viewers are going
is centrist or conservative where as network news is not? 

  George 

>>Where's Ms. DesMaisons (now) when you need her?

	i'm in the armoire.  what would you like, brandon my dear?

>  I believe that the mainstream media would put what ever pulls high ratings
>on TV.

This may be true, but would they resort to the manufacture of liberal content
for the sole purpose of increased rating?

>  So regardless of why there may be liberal bias, if it is there then it is
>only there because that's what people are willing to see.

For a long time now it's been the only food on the table ...

>  And if what you say is true and the majority of people want to watch news
>with a liberal bias, that should be seen as a warning bell to those who hold
>the conservative point of view.

I certainly do not believe that the majority of the people want to watch
news with a liberal bias.

If you believe that their sole motivation for their existance is ratings then
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Doug.

    re: .284
    
|   No, you dumb son of unmarried people.
    
    If you weren't so clueless, you might say:
    
    "No, you dumb son of a daughter of an unwed mother."
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 227.294 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

	and if you weren't so clueless, you might assume he meant
	"you dumb bastard".

    ...now you've done and gone given it away! :-)
    
       Chip

    Re: .295
    
    I don't think "a daughter of an unwed mother" translates to a single
    word (unlike "son of unmarried people"), so perhaps he has another
    angle on things.  We'll probably never know....

	  .297

	   Actually, I'd say there's little doubt that he has "another
	   angle on things".  We hold these truths to be self-evident. ;>

    Well, you guys insisted we retain the r.o. policy... :-)

>We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Yeah, right. Tell me about it.

   <<< Note 227.294 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>|   No, you dumb son of unmarried people.
    
>    If you weren't so clueless, you might say:
    
>    "No, you dumb son of a daughter of an unwed mother."
 
	Making a case for an immaculate conception?

Jim

|	and if you weren't so clueless, you might assume he meant
|	"you dumb bastard".
    
    Given the topic, he squandered an opportunity.
    
|	Making a case for an immaculate conception?
    
    Why, no.  Why?
                                                  
    								-mr. bill

	oh no!  not the "immaculate conception" misconception again!
	arrrrghh!  ;>

    -1 it could happen :-)
    
       now, if someone could come up with immaculate abortion that'd
       turn a whole topic around :-)
    
       Chip

    
| Making a case for an immaculate conception?
    

	That was one of Madonna's CD's, right?

    Wouldn't that be "ejaculate reception"?

| <<< Note 227.307 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Belgian Burger Disseminator" >>>

| Wouldn't that be "ejaculate reception"?

	No no no! That's what happens when she goes on tour!

   <<< Note 227.303 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
                                     -< ? >-

>|	Making a case for an immaculate conception?
    
>    Why, no.  Why?
 
	As the saying goes "It takes two to Tango".

Jim

Two did tango on the day of the Immaculate Conception.

Anna and Joachim, the parents of Mary.

/john

	.310  there should be a process that posts that info
	      about four times a year.  apparently.  people can
	      never seem to get it straight.

RE    <<< Note 227.293 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>This may be true, but would they resort to the manufacture of liberal content
>for the sole purpose of increased rating?

  What other possible reason would they do such a thing (assuming that they are
doing such a thing which may or may not be true). 

  What I'm saying is that just about the ONLY thing that motivates the Network
is ratings. If it's happening on network TV, it's driven by ratings.

>I certainly do not believe that the majority of the people want to watch
>news with a liberal bias.

  Ok so if you think that the majority of reporters on all 3 networks are
liberally biased, what's your take on why that happens?

  George

re .312:

>  Ok so if you think that the majority of reporters on all 3 networks are
>liberally biased, what's your take on why that happens?

People who choose journalism as a profession tend to be more liberal than
average.

    >Ok so if you think that the majority of reporters on all 3 networks are
    >liberally biased, what's your take on why that happens?
    
    They weren't smart enough to get into political science school.

  So what you are saying is that a network would make more money if they hired
conservative journalists but they can't because in this nation of 250,000,000
people there are none to be found? 

  George

>  So what you are saying is that a network would make more money if they hired
>conservative journalists but they can't because in this nation of 250,000,000
>people there are none to be found? 

No, just that a conservative journalist will seem more extreme compared to the
average leaning of journalists and less likely to survive the interview
process, especially since the various bosses will likely be ex-journalists
themselves and therefore likely more liberal.

Also while the most money, and therefore best ratings should be the ultimate
goal reality is often different.  The views of the higher executives can
deviate from this theoretical goal.  For example, it should be the goal of
Digital to make as much money as it can, and several years ago one way of
doing so was to push Unix, but Ken Olsen called it "snake oil" and Digital
missed  the boat somewhat...

  No, that doesn't work. Your theory might be ok of no conservative had ever
gotten a shot. Then you could say "If only one of our guys could get on, he'd
blow the liberal media away in ratings". 

  Problem is, conservatives like Pat Buchannan, Novack, and George Will do get
on and when they have programs those programs die in the ratings. But give
Sam Donaldson a show up against L.A. Law and he holds his own.

  Face it guys, when you actually think it through it's obvious conservative
journalists just don't attract an audience.

  George

>>    Face it guys, when you actually think it through it's obvious
>>    conservative journalists just don't attract an audience.
    
    The National Enquirer is a multimillion dollar enterprise...so what.
    You're wrong George.  Conservative talk shows dominate the airwaves...
    
    -Jack

>  What I'm saying is that just about the ONLY thing that motivates the Network
>is ratings. If it's happening on network TV, it's driven by ratings.

The mainstream media also includes most every large newspaper in the country.
Ratings do not explain their actions.

>  Ok so if you think that the majority of reporters on all 3 networks are
>liberally biased, what's your take on why that happens?

A big head, combined with a holier than thou attitude, fertilized by a liberal
based education. Quite simply, these people think they know better than you
or I. Also, the preassure to be politically correct instead of accurate is
pretty intense when exposed to the masses.

>  So what you are saying is that a network would make more money if they hired
>conservative journalists but they can't because in this nation of 250,000,000
>people there are none to be found? 

I don't want conservative journalists (although that would be an improvement).
I want unbiased reporting showing all sides of an issue (information) instead 
of having the media tell us how we should think.

>  Face it guys, when you actually think it through it's obvious conservative
>journalists just don't attract an audience.

It is sad to think that the american appetite for sensationalism outways the
importance of well balanced reporting. 

Doug.

    
    
    Ratings et al...
    
    
    Simple way to find out...
    
    Put Rush Limbaugh's show opposite stuff like Oprah or some of the
    others and see what happens...

  You guys keep blowing smoke and ducking the major questions.

  Are you saying that it is impossible for an unbiased or conservative
journalist to get on TV? Yes or No? 

  If/When that happens, do they get good ratings or not? Yes or No?

  If they do not, why do they fail to get good ratings?

---

  I think it's obvious, yes there are conservative journalists. Pat Buchannan,
Robert Novack, William F. Buckley, and George Will get plenty of air time.
Except for George Will they have to depend on public funding through PBS
to make up for their bad ratings.

  No they do not get good ratings when they go on the air.

  The reason they do not get good ratings is that people would rather hear
a liberal slant to the news and watch liberal programs instead.


  George

    
    RE: .321
    
    >You guys keep blowing smoke and ducking the major questions.
    
    Bull!!
    
    Address the statement I made about head to head programs/ratings of
    those two in .320!!
    

RE<<< Note 227.320 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Put Rush Limbaugh's show opposite stuff like Oprah or some of the
>    others and see what happens...

  Rush has been on many talk shows as a guest and Oprah blows them away
every time.

  Now answer my questions as asked.

  George

    
    You are Polish, aren't you....
    
    You babble about ratings, rating, ratings...
    
    Then you put this feeble response in in reference to my suggestion...
    
    > Rush has been on many talk shows as a guest and Oprah blows them away
    >every time.
    
     This is NOT about Rush being a "guest".... This is about putting
    Rushs' show up against Oprah or Donahue...
    
    
     Let me say this slowly...
    
      Put  the  shows  up  against  each  other  and  see  what  the 
    ratings  will  be.
    
    
      Would it be easier if I inputed the above in Polish?
    

RE <<< Note 227.324 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>      Put  the  shows  up  against  each  other  and  see  what  the 
>    ratings  will  be.
    
  Ophra by a landslide. 

  Ophra beats every day time program by a land slide. That's why she's one of
the top 1 or 2 highest paid people on TV at over $100 million a year. 

  Toss in the fact that no conservative talk or news show has ever been able to
pull enough ratings to pay it's own bills on TV and it should be pretty
obvious. Well check that, some guy ran a conservative hate show for a couple
years back in the '80s and it ran for a bit before the fad wore out. Mort
something?

  Anyway, keep ducking, keep weaving. You guys have been crying about the
liberal media for years so it must be tough when someone finally calls you on it
and it's obvious that if the TV media are liberal it's because liberals pull
the ratings and if liberals are pulling the ratings it's because that's what
people want to hear. 

  But keep ducking, keep weaving, maybe you will fool somebody. 

  George 

	Andy, Phil-boy ain't #2 anymore.... put Rush up against Ricki Lake! :-)

    RE: .325
    
    >Ophra by a landslide.
    
    
     You really a buffoon or just playing one here?
    
     Are you on the boards/panels/whatever of the networks to make and
    finalize these decisions or is it just, perhaps, oh, YOUR OPINION?
    
     Are those land slides vs. conservative programming like you suggested?
    
     Do it and let the ratings decide (your obvious "rating" bias
    non-withstanding)
    

RE<<< Note 227.327 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     Do it and let the ratings decide (your obvious "rating" bias
>    non-withstanding)
    
  Alternate Polaskie, try firing up that Polish neuron just once and consider
what's staring you in the face:

  Look at Ophra's ratings. She managed to take her show into syndication and
pull higher ratings than any other day time syndicated program in history
turning her TV program into a quarter billion dollar industry.

  Then look at programs by any conservative to come along in recent memory,
William F. Buckley, Robert Novack, Pat Buchannan, Mort Downey(?), take your
pick. None of them can pull ratings that impress anybody. None of them have a
prayer in syndication. 

  And it's not as though the right wing is not allowed on TV, Pat Robertson
has no problem getting his religious program on TV and the 700 club does
really well.

  I know it's painful but face the facts. Everyone station manager knows that
there is no market for conservative programs on TV. Radio sure. All those
angry white males crank up the car radio on their way to work and pop blood
vessels in their neck as the radio cranks out the hate but on TV with a more
general audience they don't stand a chance.

  People can't stand that stuff so it doesn't play. It's that simple.

  George

	It's a pity.  I'd rather watch Bill Buckley, in his inimitable
	fashion, than any of those other so-called hosts these days.

>         -< I don't watch Sam these days, Perter Jennings perhaps ... >-

Sam... what a joke. I saw a clip of him from some press club meeting w/
Newt where he said "Newt is just right, and I don't agree with anything
he says" (I assume he was using 'right' as in 'right wing')

Anyways, Sam is a boner... I'd like to see the types of lollypop questions
he'd give Clinton at a press conference compared to his questions to Reagan
or Bush. 

Peter Jennings is MUCH worse, however. He reeks of "I'm know more then you,
listen to me, I'll save you". And he is always comparing Clinton to Reagan
with Clinton coming out on top... for example, at the end of the State of the
Union speech...

    "Like Reagan and other presidents, Clinton pointed out several special
     guests. However, unlike Reagan, who would point them out early on, Clinton
     waited till the end, which, in this commentator's eyes, was found to be
     particulary powerfull."

or when someone said about last years address "Clinton was trying to sound
a lot like Reagan" Peter snapped back "No, he was trying to sound like
Clinton."

Peter is always so smug sounding... But I get a good laugh watching him,
because when he acts like this, which is often, I find it makes him look like
a fool.

/scott

RE              <<< Note 227.330 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
>                        -< Peter Jennings is a joke... >-

>Peter is always so smug sounding... But I get a good laugh watching him,
>because when he acts like this, which is often, I find it makes him look like
>a fool.

  Pretty successful joke. He's managed to hold on to the top ABC anchor spot
for a decade or more. I believe he is currently the longest running anchor of
the top 3 networks.

  I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank,
  George

    Good old Morton "Mouth" Downey, Jr. What ever has become of him?

| <<< Note 227.332 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>

| Good old Morton "Mouth" Downey, Jr. What ever has become of him?

	Ray... (I can call you Ray, right? :) he turned into Robert Downey Jr.

>  I think it's obvious, yes there are conservative journalists. Pat Buchannan,
>Robert Novack, William F. Buckley, and George Will get plenty of air time.
>Except for George Will they have to depend on public funding through PBS
>

Since when are any of these people journalist? Conservative yes, Journalists no.
McGlaghflin(sp?) isn't a Journalist either ...

Doug.

>  Rush has been on many talk shows as a guest and Oprah blows them away
>every time.

 So Oprah blows away other talk shows ... OK. But would she blow away a
 Rush talk show?

 BTW: Rush doesn't appear often and when he does, the ratings for that show
 far exceed ratings for others for that same talk show.

  Doug.

>Peter Jennings is MUCH worse, however. He reeks of "I'm know more then you,
>listen to me, I'll save you". And he is always comparing Clinton to Reagan
>with Clinton coming out on top... for example, at the end of the State of the
>Union speech...

More than others, Peter tries to cover all sides of a story. I may not agree with
his conclusions but at least he provides more information than the rest.

Doug.

    re; md jr. i think he swallowed himself. pretty ugly from what
        i heard...
    
        Chip

    .333
    I`m not sure how I feel about that (can I be wishy washy)!

| <<< Note 227.338 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>


| I`m not sure how I feel about that (can I be wishy washy)!


	What aren't you sure about, me calling you ray (or Ray) or Mort
becoming Robert Downey Jr?

| <<< Note 227.335 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>



| BTW: Rush doesn't appear often and when he does, the ratings for that show
| far exceed ratings for others for that same talk show.

	Doug, what source are you using to back that claim???

    All of the above...
    
    Actually the name Raymond is used ONLY by the people I dispise [sic].
    They are all in-laws, a certain neighboor, certain mangement people,
    and my wife (just kiddin on the wife part).
    

    Just as an observation George, consider the following.
    
    1. Morton Downey Jr. aired on television at 11:30 P.M.  Therefore,
    comparing him to Oprah is like comparing apples to oranges.  The
    audience for Oprah exceeds Morton because you are dealing with two
    entirely different audiences...and Oprah is on at an accessible time.
    
    2. Limbaugh is different all together.  He too is on around the
    midnight hour; however, the Nielsen ratings for Limbaugh at midnight
    far exceeded the ratings for Oprah in relation to the amount
    accessibility of the viewing audience.  
    
    I personally find Oprah as having more credibility than...say...Donahue 
    for example.  Donahue is in to shock entertainment, i.e. the guest is a 
    womans girlfriend who allegedly shot the other mistress because her 
    bellybutton was an outy.  I find this kind of media outlet to have
    little credibility in the news business.  It is fine for societal 
    awareness but that is all.  In short, comparing Limbaugh and Oprah is
    comparing two entertainers and not worthy of discussion.
    
    Now for the facts George.  George Wills commentary is actually bought
    by almost every news outlet in the country.  It is subsequently shelved
    due to its conservative content.  Same goes for Buckley and Sapphire.
    The media is definitely of a liberal slant.
    
    I have a book called "The Stealing of America".  It is loaded with
    statistics to back up this point.  I will bring it in on Monday!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 227.342 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Donahue is in to shock entertainment, i.e. the guest is a womans girlfriend 
| who allegedly shot the other mistress because her bellybutton was an outy.  

	I SAW THAT ONE!!!!! It was a classic episode! 

| I find this kind of media outlet to have little credibility in the news 
| business.  

	Jack, do you find ANY credibility in the news business??? :-)

| Now for the facts George. George Wills commentary is actually bought by almost
| every news outlet in the country.  

	If it is fact, then ya won't mind sharing with us where the source of
your info came from?

| It is subsequently shelved due to its conservative content.  

	Can you think of any of the shows that were shelved? I'm just curious
as to what the content was.

| I have a book called "The Stealing of America".  It is loaded with
| statistics to back up this point.  I will bring it in on Monday!

	Can you think of who the author is off hand?


Glen

RE    <<< Note 227.335 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

> So Oprah blows away other talk shows ... OK. But would she blow away a
> Rush talk show?

  Yes. Just like she blows away all those other conservative talk shows on PBS.
What do you think happens when William F. Buckley goes head to head with Ophra
at 4PM on a week day? Here's a hint, one show has turned into a quarter billion
dollar industry, the other has to depend on Government funding through PBS. 

  And you guys are still ducking my questions because you know you can't answer
them. 

  If people want to see more balanced or conservative programming, why can't
they get on the air? 

  Why don't those programs which are already on PBS pull in bigger ratings? 

  Why would people rather watch Connie Chung on 48 hours than William F Buckley
on PBS? 

  The answer is clear, liberal leaning programs attract viewers, conservative
programs can only get their audience of vein popping angry white men when they
those guys are riding alone in their cars and pickup trucks with the windows
rolled up. 

  George 

RE    <<< Note 227.342 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Now for the facts George.  George Wills commentary is actually bought
>    by almost every news outlet in the country.  It is subsequently shelved
>    due to its conservative content.  Same goes for Buckley and Sapphire.
>    The media is definitely of a liberal slant.

  The media is of a money making slant. Are you really trying to sell the
idea that in the competitive environment of the media, a station that is
struggling to make ends meet and is in danger of going under will not run
a conservative because of their politics? No station anywhere?

  Come on, give me a break. Stations are businesses who make or break on
profit. If George Will attracted viewers, viewers would get to see George Will.

>    I have a book called "The Stealing of America".  It is loaded with
>    statistics to back up this point.  I will bring it in on Monday!
    
  Oh terrific, more statistics. Great, bring them on. Last time you gave us
statistics you had a line of reasoning that if applied to the weather would
proved that umbrellas cause it to rain. 

  George

    
    
    meowski is getting bitter seeing liberalism gasp its last breath.

RE          <<< Note 227.346 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    meowski is getting bitter seeing liberalism gasp its last breath.

  And still another content free note. 

  Be careful, don't challenge any of my ideas, keep those claims empty.

  It's funny how conservatives stress the words "last" and "final" with 
regard to this election. 60 years of history show us that Republicans shoot
themselves in the foot within 4-12 years after taking the Congress but one
win and "finally" this "last" election has put them into power.

  Here's the trick, how do you prevent voters from ever going to the voting
boots again?

  George

    George:
    
    Well, then I won't bother bringing in the statistics.
    
    Actually, I am inclined to agree with you as far as what show draws
    more attention.  But what you have just said in a nutshell is that
    Americans as a rule are ignorant, uninformed, and want to have their
    ears tickled with candy coated falsehoods.  Well, there isn't anything 
    I can do about that.
    
    I can only go by my own personal experiences George.  There is NO
    dysfunctionality in my life.  I am always on the inside looking out.
    My predjudices in life are not based on feelings, but more on logic and
    reason.  In other words, I don't dislike radical feminism just because
    of my ego.  I dislike radical feminism because I see it as a detriment
    to the role of both women and men in society.  Just my humble
    opinion...and one out of many examples.
    So, if the society at large gets their jollies by watching cross
    dressers with big bellies and beards, then more power to them.  This is
    America.  Again, all you have pointed out is that there are more 
    superficial Americans out there than I had hoped.  I'll stick to CSPAN,
    McNeil/Lehrer, and Crossfire while you learn how to put condoms on a
    pigs square one.  Then when the next election comes along, we can
    compare notes.
    
    -Jack

    Diane:
    
    Beat you to it!  Prejudices...not Predjudices!!!! :-)

    Glen:
    
    No, I don't have the authors name for this book.
    
    Re: George Will - The Boston Globe purchased rights to all George
    Will's editorials.  They purposely do not print them out because 
    it is not in accordance with their socialist philosophies.  
    
    It is a common practice and also done by the NYT, Atlanta Constipation
    and Urinal, Washinton Post, Chicago Tribune... list continues!
    
    -Jack

RE    <<< Note 227.348 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Actually, I am inclined to agree with you as far as what show draws
>    more attention.  But what you have just said in a nutshell is that
>    Americans as a rule are ignorant, uninformed, and want to have their
>    ears tickled with candy coated falsehoods.  Well, there isn't anything 
>    I can do about that.

  Ok I'll buy that. When Americans voted for the GOP this past election it was
because "Americans as a rule are ignorant, uninformed, and want to have their
ears tickled with candy coated falsehoods." Glad to see you finally admit that.

  Typical conservative logic. If liberals are winning it's because Americans
are ignorant. If conservatives are winning it's a triumph of Democracy and
the people have "finally" spoken.

  Just as I thought,
  George

RE    <<< Note 227.350 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Re: George Will - The Boston Globe purchased rights to all George
>    Will's editorials.  They purposely do not print them out because 
>    it is not in accordance with their socialist philosophies.  

  This shows how you twist and distort the truth to fit your arguments. In
fact the Globe does print George Will's editorials.
    
  George

>| BTW: Rush doesn't appear often and when he does, the ratings for that show
>| far exceed ratings for others for that same talk show.
>
>	Doug, what source are you using to back that claim???

Awhile back, Phil was on another show (don't remember which) and they were 
talking about some of the guests he'd had on over the years. Rush was 
mentioned and Phil said that show got one of the biggest audiences he'd had.

He also disagreed with Rush on most every issue ...

btw: that should say 'far exceed ratings for other 'episodes' of that same 
talk show'

Doug.

  So why doesn't Rush syndicate his show and sell it to TV stations that will
run it in prime time? 

  Now think this through. Areas like Boston have several TV stations, the
affiliates of the big networks and smaller stations scraping to get by and
hungry for programming. 

  Do you really believe that none of these stations would run Rush because of
his politics? 

  Does that make any sense at all? They run Pat Robertson and the 700 club and
that doesn't offend their political sense, why not Rush?

  George

    George:
    
    America voted out the demmies because they are representatives of
    Washington DC.  And George Wills column WAS in fact shelved by the
    Boston Rag at one time.  They must have smartened up recently because
    they knew they had a bad reputation as a newsworthy rag!

| <<< Note 227.346 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>



| meowski is getting bitter seeing liberalism gasp its last breath.


	wannamonkey, he's just getting bitter cause you haven't gasped yours
yet! :-)

>  So why doesn't Rush syndicate his show and sell it to TV stations that will
>run it in prime time? 

His show is viewed as a late night show... there are some places which 
show it during the daytime. But primetime night is very hard... most 
places show movies from 8 to 10, then show news... the big networks won't
even touch his show for prime time...

For now, at 11:30 on Fox 25, isn't too bad a spot... I'd be interested to
see how it does against Nightline... it would be (is, I should say) a
good test for his show.

>  Does that make any sense at all? They run Pat Robertson and the 700 club and
>that doesn't offend their political sense, why not Rush?

How many stations run the 700 club? I don't think I've ever seen it on
except for the Family Chanell or whatever it's called now...

/scott

| <<< Note 227.348 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Well, then I won't bother bringing in the statistics.

	No Jack, please, bring them in. Enlighten us to your facts. This way we
will know it isn't just your basic opinion getting in the way again. :-)

| But what you have just said in a nutshell is that Americans as a rule are 
| ignorant, uninformed, and want to have their ears tickled with candy coated 
| falsehoods.  

	That's NOT what he said Jack. he said Oprah would BEAT a Rush show, not
the other way around. :-)

| I can only go by my own personal experiences George. There is NO 
| dysfunctionality in my life.  

	I'm gonna be nice Jack. but if you EVER set me up this well again... I
won't hold back! :-)

| I am always on the inside looking out.

	It's called a bubble Jack. Pop it and you'll be surprised what you
would be able to see.

| My predjudices in life are not based on feelings, but more on logic and reason

	JJjjjjjjJJJjjJJjjjjjJJJaaaack!!!!  STOP IT!!!!  I AM TRYing to be nice!

| So, if the society at large gets their jollies by watching cross dressers with
| big bellies and beards, then more power to them.  

	You're the one who says he likes watching Rush.... :-)



Glen

	Jack, what are George Will's editorials on? Like what does he say?


Glen

	Thanks Doug for the Rush/Phil info. I think they were all on Oprah...

| <<< Note 227.357 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| How many stations run the 700 club? I don't think I've ever seen it on except 
| for the Family Chanell or whatever it's called now...

	Scott, another local channel ran it last week for a while in the Boston
area. The only reason I knew that is because the family channel and this other
one are back to back (18/19), so flippin through the channels, I saw it.

 There are a few local channels that run the 700 club (or used to).  Channel
 25 in Boston used to run it at 10AM each day.  Don't know if they still do.
 And I believe channel 60 in Manchester NH runs it daily as well.





Jim

 > So why doesn't Rush syndicate his show and sell it to TV stations that will
>run it in prime time? 

Actually, he is on Primetime in California.

The show has been on less that 2 years ...  I'd say he is doing alright 
considering ...

Doug.

>>                     -< Why don't you manage his affairs? >-

	One of my roommates says G.E. owns Rush.  True or false? 

>	One of my roommates says G.E. owns Rush.  True or false? 

I don't think any company "owns" Rush... That GE comment was made from
some congressman because Rush was against health care or something that
this demorcrate was for...

I think GE owns something which one of Rush's producers work or worked for
at one time... or it might even be more indirect than that...

/scott

RE              <<< Note 227.359 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Jack, what are George Will's editorials on? Like what does he say?

  It's the same stuff you hear in this file, for example:

    "The nation finally decided that Barry Goldwater was right ..."
                -------

making the same mistake of thinking that this will be the last election ever to
be held. 

  If you watch him on "This Week with David Brinkley" you get the gist of what
he's all about. Typical conservative on fiscal matters who's rationality goes
right out the window when ever he has to talk about sex. 

  George 

  >>      "The nation finally decided that Barry Goldwater was right ..."
    
    Yes and fortunately, George McGovern on Meet the Press admitted his
    policies in the early 70's were flawed!  
    
    George, you just keep on advocating for the victims in society. 
    Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and continue to strive for my own goals in
    life.  Independence and simply avoiding the stupid decisions your
    ilk seems to make...which by the way puts a burden on the taxpayer
    and creates havoc in society.  But don't you worry George...you just
    keep on pressing forward for more socialism.  We will make Washington
    DC our god yet!!!
    
    - Jack

RE    <<< Note 227.367 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Yes and fortunately, George McGovern on Meet the Press admitted his
>    policies in the early 70's were flawed!  

  There isn't anyone in the nation who doesn't think that George McGovern's
politics were flawed. The reason so many of us voted for him (In Massachusetts
anyway) was that we didn't want what we felt was a crook in the white house.
    
>    George, you just keep on advocating for the victims in society. 

  Where did that come from? Advocating for victims rights is most often a
conservative lar'en order type argument. 

>    Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and continue to strive for my own goals in
>    life.  

  This keeps getting weirder and weirder. When did I ever say I didn't strive
for for goals in my life?

>Independence and simply avoiding the stupid decisions your
>    ilk seems to make...which by the way puts a burden on the taxpayer
>    and creates havoc in society.  

  What about the stupid decisions your ilk makes? I keep looking for some
sort of thread which holds your paragraph together, so far it's nowhere to
be found but I'll keep looking.

>But don't you worry George...you just
>    keep on pressing forward for more socialism.  We will make Washington
>    DC our god yet!!!
    
  When did I ever argue for socialism?

  George

    George:
    
    Easy...
    
    Liberal = Lamebrained
    
    Lamebrained = Socialist
    
    Therefore Liberal = Socialist
    
    Don't you remember...an equivocal argument from your logic class in
    college!!    

RE    <<< Note 227.369 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Liberal = Lamebrained
>    Lamebrained = Socialist
>    Therefore Liberal = Socialist
    
  Well I don't accept Liberal = Lamebrained as an axiom but your logic is
about as good as your understanding of statistics. Using your method:

     Conservative = Meat Eater
     Meat Eater = Hyena
     Conservative = Hyena

  George

	.370  heheheh.  purty quick thinkin' for a Friday afternoon. ;>

    Actually, an equivocation was listed as one of the fallacies.
    
    I'm just trying to get your goat George!  We'll let liberalism fall on
    its own liabilities!
    
    -Jack

    Reply to note .257 - It's a few back now, but I don't have much
    time to play around in notes and thought it worth replying to.  
    The attached is, of course, all IMHO.

>> Really, now? And just which republican tenet do you support? Surely
   you can find at least one. From your statements, one would more readily
   believe you are more enamored (enamored) :-) with democrats.<<
     
     For one, I am completely in favor of the death penalty.  I 
     would like to see the building of more prisons even if they have 
     to be in my back yard.  Tougher sentencing of convicted criminals,
     and tougher drunk driving laws.

     I believe in cutting taxes, but not in cutting services - it's possible 
     to do both if you really want to.

     I strongly believe that Welfare and Social Services in general need to 
     be cleaned up.  The administration of these are poor and in need of
     some sensible reorganization.  

     I am a middle of the road Republican supporter, like a large number of 
     other Republicans.  But, heaven help us all if we blindly follow without
     questioning or investigating what ever our leaders put forth as
     policy.  

     
Denying Welfare to Legal Aliens.

>>  He (Gingrich) had once proposed such a thing, but others pointed out 
    problems with the idea so he decided it was a bad idea and abandoned it. 
    Now I suppose that he's not allowed ever to make mistakes, <<

     Mistakes I can live with, but he makes too many grandiose statements 
     that he has to go back on afterward and that I have a problem with.

     As for the plan to deny Legal Aliens access to Welfare, read this quote
     from the Boston Globe of Wednesday 1/25 --

     "The leading Republican plan to revamp the nations Welfare system would 
     be to bar most legal immigrants from receiving cash, housing, health and 
     food assistance at a savings of $22 million over five years."
  
     "House speaker Newt Gingrich promised earlier this month to "revisit" the 
     issue....

     Doesn't sound like anyone's abandoned anything here, does it!

** I just wish that the night Newt went to the movies they had been
playing Dicken's Christmas Carol, instead of Boys Town.  Although, the Ghost 
of Christmas would have had his work cut out to turn Newt around.

>>  You seem both ignorant of Newt's ideas, and afraid
    of his power.<<

    I am well aware of what Newt is doing and how he's doing it.  A wise man 
    knows to be afraid of someone who plays into bigotry and fear 
    the way Newt does.  Maybe you aren't old enough or well enough versed 
    in history to remember how the Third Reich came to power.  You don't 
    govern democratically by setting one side of society against another, 
    driving a super highway between the have and have-nots.  That was tried
    in France in the latter part of the 18th century and see where that 
    ended--at the sharp end of a guillotine.

    Newt says the welfare system doesn't work.  He's wrong, it works very
    well.  We don't have acres of tent cities outside of Boston, we don't
    have packs of starving children running like wild dogs in our streets.
    We don't have bodies of the sick and starving littering our sidewalks.
    The welfare system is responsible for all of that.  It's not the system
    that needs to be changed, it's the people who run it, but that could
    be said of so many government agencies.
    
    It is possible to make changes without name calling, such as labeling 
    the elderly, women, and children in poverty as leeches on the public 
    purse, or inciting ill feelings toward people who legally choose 
    to live in this country, complete a lengthy and complex qualification, 
    and in the majority pay their way and contribute a great deal to our 
    economy.  There are some deadbeats, but there are quite a few deadbeat 
    senators as well, on both sides of the house.  

    I hear a lot from Gingrich about out-of-work layabouts, welfare and 
    teenage mothers, and people on Social Security who have no need of 
    the money.  I don't hear much from him about teenage fathers who father 
    multiple children by different mothers and don't support them, I don't 
    hear about scofflaw fathers who abandon their families and leave the 
    taxpayer to support them either or about taking away their unemployment 
    checks.  I don't hear him say anything about senators who make millions 
    on the side,  but don't give back their senatorial pay check when they 
    don't need the money. Why I wonder?  Could it be that the first group are 
    easy targets and have no power or resources to fight back, or is it that 
    the first group is almost exclusively female, and we all know what 
    Gingrich thinks of women -- bit**es

    Anyone who indulges in name calling, as I have heard done by Gingrich, 
    is mentally still in kindergarten, and they have no place in an 
    institution that is suppose to legislate equally for everyone.  
    
>>Only if he gets bogged down in squabbles over issues that needlessly
    expend political capital. And I think he's shrewd enough not to. But
    we'll see<<

     I live for the day when you see Gingrich in his true light, and I predict 
     that you will.  There are more and more who recognize him for what he is.  
     In todays news, American's support for Clinton is 51%, for Gingrich 38%.
     
     Gingrich is squandering the opportunity for real change and 
     improvement by these penny-anti crusades.  For example, the savings 
     from denying Legal Aliens access to welfare is reported to be a 
     potential 22 million OVER FIVE YEARS (a figure he did not supported 
     with proof), or 4.4 million a year -- or considerably less, than one 
     months subsidy the government gives to the tobacco growers (Not to 
     mention the additional health care costs of treating smokers.) And 
     I would like to bet that the government spends more each year on paper 
     clips and rubber bands than is spent on welfare payments to Legal Aliens.  
   
     I applaud the Republican's quest to clean up America.  Tax dollars 
     need to be spent much more wisely, but the way they are proposing to 
     do it is by "playing to the gallery" of bigots and hate-mongers, and
     the voice I hear raised in tirade so often is Gingrich.  

     
    >>This is a very popular excuse used by those who have no substance
    behind their accusations and negative opinions. Are you using it that
    way? I don't know, but from all your notes, you really haven't had much
    substantive to say against the man, except that in your quasi-educated
    opinion he's a nut. Sorry, but that really doesn't hold much water.<<

    No, I really mean it.  I don't know how you people can send so much time 
    in Notes and work as well.

    And as for your opinion on my intellect and the amount 
    of water my opinions hold: 

         A ten gallon drum of it in your ear Sunshine!
                                                                  

 Connie canned...Dan goes solo

	Hasn't Dan always been going solo???? :-)

	Connie is gonna have to either find work when her contract with CBS is
up or face the fact that Maury Povich is the bread winner now. :-)


Glen

    I for one am glad to see Commie Chung go.  I don't watch those
    nincompoops anyway but it is nice to see them fail in any way possible.
    
    Rather fails to understand that he is just as much to blame as she is
    for the third place drop!
    
    -Jack

    I'm glad she's gone, too (although I don't watch any of them
    either).  Apparently her behavior in OKC (which infuriated lots
    of the residents there, who took to selling "We've been Chunged"!
    T-shirts) was the last straw for the CBS execs.
    
    Rather stinks, too, but at least he wasn't typically drawing fire
    from media-watchers the way she was.
    
    There are lots of excellent women in television news, but Chung
    isn't one of them, and it was unfortunate that CBS selected her for
    such a highly visible position.  CNN probably has the best, but
    I doubt any of them would leave there for the likes of CBS or any
    of the other "big three".
    
    Chris

What did Chung do in OKC???

Thanks,

Bob

    
      I wondered if the "whispered" her firing in her ear ?
    
      bb

>> What did Chung do in OKC???
    
    I didn't see it myself, I only read about it later in the newspaper.
    I wish I could recall the details, but it concerned the kinds of
    on-the-street interviews she was doing, the emotionally-loaded
    questions she was asking, and (one detail I do recall) how street
    crime was rampant in OKC supposedly because all of the police were
    at the bombing site.  I recall that this latter "report" from her
    was the last straw for the OKC residents, who started the T-shirt
    campaign shortly thereafter.
    
    Chris

    
    
    Connie is saying that it's sexual discrimination.
    
    
    Mike

 What a whiner...go out and get a job, Connie..

    >Connie is saying that it's sexual discrimination.
    
     And if that doesn't work, it'll be a racial thing.
    
     There is, of course, no possibility that her own performance lead to
    lower ratings (thus engendering her termination). I'm surprised that
    she hasn't decided to sue the viewers for giving her low ratings and
    being generally put off by her tabloidesque insensitivity and inane
    questions.