Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (8966)	3/1/1998 2:49:00 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Respond to of 20981

Mike, Just wanted to let you know that I had a nice, well thought out reply to your questions, prepared in Windoze and Netscape, when my ISP again took leave of cyberspace. Hopefully, they'll get it together over there and then I can post it to you. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you if I start posting headlines. Headlines are about all it's feasible to post in this program. You'd really have to see it to believe it. Holly

To: greenspirit who wrote (8966)	3/1/1998 12:40:00 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Mike, With regard to the special prosecutor, I just plain don't like anything about the process. It is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls. The time to ferret out all this stuff--whatever it is or isn't--is before someone is elected. The kind of nonsense going on at present with our sitting President is what makes the US of A the laughing stock of the entire world. I posted before on this thread that prior to Clinton's nomination and subsequent election, all we ever really heard about him from the media was that he'd probably had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, he smoked pot but didn't inhale, and he had maneuvered his way out of the draft. These criminal allegations are now coming to light, courtesy of this same media. I think of a newspaper as being liberal or conservative, depending upon it's editorial content and how it slants its news which can often make it difficult to distinguish between reporting and editorializing. It is telling to see what a paper or other news medium chooses to report or chooses to not report or--worse--underreport or overreport. This dubious distinction can be generously applied to liberal and conservative papers. I give the SF Chronicle high marks for offering a balanced editorial page and in clearly distinguishing between news and editorials. I like its overall balance in content. I read the SF Examiner only on Sundays when it combines with the SF Chronicle and would definitely call the SF Examiner a conservative paper. Read it for a week or so, and I think you'll agree. <vvbg> Although I haven't read the LA times regularly for several years, I always thought of it as a liberal-leaning paper. I have heard it stated that the Washingting Post is liberal, although I've never read it with any regularity. I have a friend with a Ph.D. in Journalism whose first newspaper job was with the Washington Post. He tells me that even with his Ph.D., the Post wouldn't have looked twice at him had he not done his dissertation on propaganda. Before you ask, he is no longer with the Post. On my profile page here at SI, you can find a link to the Contra Costa Times, another paper I think to be ultra-conservative. In recent years, the CC Times was purchased by Knight-Ridder and may have changed its content accordingly. However, we think of Contra Costa County as Orange County North, so I kinda doubt their content and style have changed that dramatically. It is a little different reading that paper online as opposed to the print edition. BTW, I think the graphics at Hot CoCo are outtasight fantastic. Holly