<<There was no fanatical support by a monolithic press.>>
You're missing the forest for the trees. The networks, NYT, WP (i.e., big Left-Wing media) coverage was ENTIRELY in the context of "What will THEY try to do to Clinton next? Did THEY succeed or fail with the last attacks?". Just as the coverage in Florida was "Will they let the votes be counted?" Do you think for even a second that, had Gore been 300 votes ahead in FL on election night-leading to the usual Republican concession-that these dogs would still be counting worn-out ballots in Florida? Would Ken Starr have been able to be trashed like he was if the media hadn't taken sides? (Some still consider the weasel John Dean a hero!!!). Would any paper in '74 have dared to suggest that "We should move on", because the Republicans could scrape up enough votes to prevent a Nixon conviction? (Nixon resigned, in part, because he thought such a debate would do great damage to a country he loved and defended, even against its internal enemies, who eventually defeated him).
In Imperial Japan, Stalinist Russia, and Nazi Germany, the public always discounted their press because they could ASSUME it was a government propaganda entity. In the US, there are plenty of devious liberals and just-plain-fools who can't understand the far-more-subtle sellout by a press that doesn't HAVE to act this way. And that creates a much greater weapon for the American Left than the obviously-controlled press that the murderous totalitarians of the 20th Century had to content themselves with... |
