---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Bass/HOU/ECT on 09/06/2000 03:47 PM
---------------------------

"Brian Hoskins" <bthoskins@hotmail.com< on 09/06/2000 03:41:03 PM
To: abamontb@slu.edu, bsteinhart@yahoo.com, ebass@enron.com,
eljinsha@yahoo.com, hcampos@enron.com, mpstan0@hotmail.com, stupor@home.com,
roberto.martinez@enron.com, roman14@hotmail.com
cc:
Subject:

September 6, 2000 WSJ

Bush vs. the Press
A Washington adage holds that a politician commits a "gaffe" when he
inadvertently tells the truth. This is how we read George W. Bush's
off-the-record aside that New York Times reporter Adam Clymer is a "major
league" you-know-what.

In that refreshingly incautious remark caught Monday by an open microphone,
Mr. Bush was admitting, albeit unintentionally, that his campaign has a
press problem. We aren't referring only to Mr. Clymer, whose performance
review has been ably undertaken by neo-liberal journalist Mickey Kaus at
kausfiles.com. We're talking about the general media double standard faced
by every prominent conservative politician.

As Democrat-turned-journalist Michael Barone has observed, the mainstream
media aren't pro-Democratic. They will sometimes take a Democrat to task,
especially if he violates a media shibboleth such as "campaign-finance
reform." But they are reliably anti-Republican. That is, in newsrooms across
the land there is noticeably greater skepticism, and often animosity, toward
politicians who are cultural conservatives or who want to restrict the scope
of federal power.

This rarely manifests itself in blatant partisanship or attacks. Instead the
slant shines through in the press pack's definition of what constitutes news
or the interpretation the pack puts on news. Consider the treatment of three
recent campaign episodes:

When Mr. Bush said back in the primaries that his favorite philosopher was
"Christ," he was downgraded on the spot by the press for pandering to the
"religious right." The implication was that he couldn't possibly mean it.
But now Democrat and liberal Joe Lieberman is making a much more frequent
and vocal issue of his own religious faith, and the same media that scolded
Mr. Bush are writing long, thoughtful treatises on the role of religion in
politics. And any criticism of Mr. Lieberman is accompanied with the caveat
that the Orthodox Jew really is sincere. This is a double standard.

Or take Mr. Bush's recent decision to run a TV spot attacking Mr. Gore's
credibility. This was reported, in the New York Times and elsewhere, as
going "negative," primarily as a response to Mr. Gore's rise in the polls.
But what about the weeks-long TV-ad hammering that Democrats have laid on
Mr. Bush -- for his Texas record, and even during the GOP convention on his
running mate's 15-year-old voting record? The Gore attacks were reported as
legitimate subjects of political debate. We happen to think all of these are
legitimate, but only Mr. Bush's got the good-housekeeping media's "negative"
label.

Then there is the debate over Presidential debates. This back and forth is a
hardy perennial, and you'd think the press would merely let both sides duke
it out. But in the coverage we've seen, Mr. Bush's proposal to break from
the Commission on Presidential Debates mold is being treated as an attempt
to dodge debates or attract a smaller audience. Mr. Gore's decision to
renege on his pledges to debate on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CNN's "Larry
King Live" don't get the same spin.

This criticism of Mr. Bush is especially galling when it comes from the
likes of ABC and CBS, who now whine that they won't carry debates held by
other networks. So much for their public-spiritedness. Their reaction shows
that the debate commission is less about designing a forum to educate voters
and more about dividing the commercial TV spoils equally. We hope Mr. Bush
sticks with his desire to have a less scripted, more open exchange with Mr.
Gore.

Mr. Bush has given signs before that he understands his party's media
problem better than most other Republicans. Indeed, we've long suspected
that his "compassionate conservative" theme was as much about media
management as policy. It was designed to deflect the inevitable media
portrayal of any Republican as a heartless, Gingrichian budget cutter. Mr.
Bush also stood up to the press pack when it sought to hound him about
rumors of youthful drug use.

We aren't suggesting that Mr. Bush should get into a pitched battle with the
press corps, and especially not with any one reporter. Our point is that Mr.
Bush won't be able to count on even-handed media coverage to carry his
battle to Mr. Gore. He's going to have to make his case directly, and not
too subtly, to voters over the heads of the media.

That means Mr. Bush would be better off doing more debates in several
forums. And, above all, it means setting his own agenda and strategy, no
matter if ankle-biters in the press corps call it "negative."

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.