Left, Right, Left: The Many Ways to View Bush’s First 100 Days

It would be unfortunate and a bit disingenuous to lump the criticism of media coverage ofGeorge Bush with those who claim conspiracies and nefarious practices by journalists (“The Bashing: So Subtle It’s Undetectable,” by Howard Rosenberg, April 30).

Many Americans, who are neither stereotypes or foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives, see left-leaning bias in news coverage in the mainstream media. I am a Republican and conservative and I am not racist, homophobic and I don’t fall “somewhere between reptile and repugnant.” I love the environment and, believe it or not, I also breathe the same air and drink the same water I and others on the right are being accused of poisoning.

What the mainstream media (mainly television news) has done is to force me to look elsewhere for news--and to seek a variety of sources. The Los Angeles Times is one of those sources.

If Rosenberg doesn’t see bias, that is his view and I can respect that. But please respect us enough to not label those who demand some objectivity from the media and those who create movies and TV programming with right-wing extremists like Hal Lindsey.

SCOTT BALTHAZARD

Tampa, Fla.

Who is Rosenberg kidding? What a perfect example of an Orwellian smoke-screen newspaper article.

DIANE CRUM

South Pasadena

I can still recall Bill Clinton’s first 100 days and how the “liberal press” were brutal in their treatment of him, which continued throughout his presidency.

Granted he did give them fuel for the fire with the Monica situation, but it still demonstrates the fact that the “liberal press” is a myth and invention of the extreme right-wing like Hal Lindsey and Rush Limbaugh.

COLLEEN SERRANTINO

Pasadena

I would think someone as educated as Rosenberg would know that flipping around on a couple of television channels for a few minutes does not constitute valid empirical research. If Rosenberg really cared about the bent of the mainstream media in their review of Bush’s first 100 days, he could go to, voila, his own employer on the Web and do an objective search of The Times’ own articles.

It was interesting to note the juxtaposition on the same day as Rosenberg’s article ran of the report about The Times’ poll re Bush’s performance. Having studied the science of polling in business school, I always look at the wording of the questions. If the pollsters would have phrased the economy vs. environment question, “If enforcement of tough new environmental laws caused the economy so much distress that your job was eliminated, would you still be in favor of them?,” I imagine that the responses would have been markedly different, as well as much closer to supporting the Bush position. But I forget: It is more important for Democrats to make the Republican position look wrong and evil than to do the right thing.

BARBARA J. KOLKEBECK

South Pasadena

While Hal Lindsey has a camp following, he by no means has a large one. His toy news studio setting is all part of the image he tries to project and which Rosenberg saw through.

As a retired Baptist minister and seminary professor, I would say that the vast majority of Christians would say, “Oh, is he still around?”

HOWARD R. STEWART

Alhambra

Other than Fox and talk radio, who may be biased toward the right, I believe that the overwhelming bias and spin of the media in general is to the left. The media, typified by your newspaper and the New York Times and, to a lesser extent, the Washington Post, gives leftward spin if not downright advocacy to the liberal position.

If one tries to objectively analyze how reporters begin or word their articles, or the frequency and volume of commentary from the Democrat side, it is difficult not to conclude what Hal Lindsey has said may carry some weight.

I would not say that Bush’s being quoted in self-derogation, however humorous, gives him positive press or air time.

I would like to see more objectivity, with both sides being presented, and analysis left to editorial pages and commentaries. Let the public decide whether Bush’s energy policies reflect cost-benefit choices or foreign-policy statements reflect candor rather than have a reporter call them gaffes within his or her news report. Have The Times print commentary from Thomas Sowell or Tony Snow or Mona Charen with near the frequency of the left-wing advocates and not edit George Will’s infrequent representations.

DON ROTH

Northridge