"Do the Markets Now Miss" Clinton?; Laura Bush Pressed on Gun Control; Gay Journalist Conceded Media Bias on Dirkhising
1) Bush "has done very little" about the
plunging stock market "with the exception of seemingly adding fuel to
the fire with talk of a worsening economy," complained Bryant Gumbel
who proposed: "Do the markets now miss Bill Clinton and Bob
2) ABC and CBS, but not NBC, squeezed in brief mentions on
Thursday night of President Bush's decision to take the ABA out of the
judicial nominee vetting process. Both displayed labeling balance in
crediting the change in policy to "conservatives" concerned
about the ABA's "liberal leaning."
3) On Thursday's Today, Jamie Gangel pressed First Lady
Laura Bush about how children have too much "access to guns" and
tried to get her to contradict her husband: "Do you think there
should be stricter gun control laws?"
4) A jury convicted a gay man in the murder of 13-year-old
Jesse Dirkhising, but where's the media? A gay journalist conceded:
"Difficult as it may be to admit, some of the gay-baiting right's
argument about media bias holds up....The Dirkhising case was ignored for
political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed
5) The movie Erin Brockovich is up for several Oscars, but
Michael Fumento warned: "Far from being 'environmental crusaders'
as the media now routinely calls them, [lawyer Ed] Masry and Brockovich
have never crusaded for anything but lucre."
only Bill Clinton were still President the stock market would be booming,
CBS's Bryant Gumbel contended on Thursday morning, only to have his
thesis rejected by his guest. On the March 22 Early Show, MRC analyst
Brian Boyd noticed, Gumbel argued that "the Bush White House has done
very little about this with the exception of seemingly adding fuel to the
fire with talk of a worsening economy." He then asked a market
analyst: "Do the markets now miss Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin?"
The questions came in the middle of an
interview with Eric Wiegand of Credit Suisse Asset Management. Gumbel
denounced Bush's actions or lack thereof: "I know you're not a
political analyst but the Bush White House has done very little about this
with the exception of seemingly adding fuel to the fire with talk of a
worsening economy. Is there something official Washington should or could
be doing to help right now?"
Wiegand pointed out the "policy benefit
they have at their disposal is really pursuing tax cuts," but
there's "consternation" in the market over the timing of any
benefit of the cuts and "absolute concern over when does that benefit
reach the consumer?"
Without acknowledging that maybe media attacks
on the "fairness" of tax cut have contributed to market concerns
about whether they will pass, Gumbel followed up by portraying
Clintonomics as under-appreciated: "But the reason I ask is for years
the markets pooh-poohed Clintonomics and patted Greenspan on the back, but
in truth do the markets now miss Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin?"
Most definitely not, Wiegand countered as he
offered a different explanation: "I think it's more of an issue of
concern with Greenspan. I think the reality of the issue is that people
have come back and said that the monetary policy was extremely easy,
certainly in the latter portion of 1999, as reserves were injected into
the system in order to guard against any run as a result of the millennium
and that the rapid withdrawal of those reserves in 2000 caused for
significant contraction. Now there's the need for that expansion once
Unfazed at having his liberal reasoning
rebuked, Gumbel moved on: "People have been saying sit tight and hold
the course. But in the meantime they've been watching their life savings
slip away. Is it time to revise expectations and devise new
++ Watch Gumbel in action trying to repair
Clinton's image. On Friday MRC Webmaster Andy Szul will post a
RealPlayer clip of the above exchange. Go to: http://archive.mrc.org
CBS, but not NBC, squeezed in brief mentions on Thursday night of
President Bush's decision to no longer give the American Bar Association
the special privilege of advanced word on judicial nominees so they can
evaluate them. Both displayed labeling balance in crediting the change in
policy to "conservatives" concerned about the ABA's
None of the three shows touched Trent Lott's
proposal for a bigger tax cut. And it wasn't the school shooting in El
Cajon, California which drove out political news. While CBS and NBC led
with it, ABC only gave it a few seconds. The plunging stock market and the
Mir got as much time.
On World News Tonight, ABC's Peter Jennings
announced: "President Bush has ended the American Bar Association's
semi-official role in screening potential nominees for federal judgeships,
which it has done for 50 years. Conservatives complain that the bar
association has liberal leanings."
Over on the CBS Evening News, anchor John
Roberts noted: "After fifty years of special status the American Bar
Association will no longer have a leading role in vetting candidates for
federal judgeships. The White House notified the ABA today that it will no
longer get advanced word on perspective nominees. The move was pushed by
conservatives who view the ABA as liberal leaning."
taped interview aired on Thursday's Today, Jamie Gangel pressed First
Lady Laura Bush about how children have too much "access to
guns" and tried to get her to contradict her husband: "Do you
think there should be stricter gun control laws?"
MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens took down the
relevant portion of the interview on the March 22 Today:
Jamie Gangel: "Another issue in schools
is safety. Since you've been at the White House, unfortunately, there's
been another rash of shootings. The tragedy in California, an incident in
Pennsylvania. What do you think needs to be done about violence in these
Laura Bush: "Well I mean I think it's a huge
problem. It's a whole problem in our whole society and that is how we
glorify violence in our society. From movies to records, to, to
everything. Parents really need to be parents. They need to be authority
figures with their children, they need to make sure that their children
are only exposed to the things that are appropriate for their age."
Gangel: "The access that some of these
children had to guns was quite extraordinary. Do you think we have to do
something about this access to guns?"
Bush: "Absolutely. I mean I think parents
need to be very, very careful if they have guns in their home. Everybody
who has a gun in their home needs to be very careful that no child ever
has access to it. I mean that's just good sense."
Gangel: "Do you think there should be
stricter gun control laws?"
Bush: "I think there should be some laws
that, uh, but I also think it's a, just a matter of responsibility and
good sense on the parts of adults. All of this is."
A good non-answer.
two gay men charged with raping and murdering a 13-year-old boy in
Arkansas was found guilty by a jury on Thursday of rape and first degree
murder in a case in which even a gay writer for The New Republic now sees
media bias in how journalists have avoided covering it.
Contrasting media obsession with Matthew
Shepard, the murdered gay college student, with how reporters have avoided
the Jesse Dirkhising case, Andrew Sullivan conceded in the April 2 New
Republic: "But, difficult as it may be to admit, some of the
gay-baiting right's argument about media bias holds up." Sullivan
argued: "The murders of Shepard and Dirkhising are both extremely
rare, and neither says much that can be generalized to the wider world. So
why the obsession with Shepard and the indifference with regard to
Dirkhising?" His explanation:
"The answer is politics. The Shepard case
was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of
homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law. The Dirkhising case was ignored
for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could
feed anti-gay prejudice."
As outlined in the March 19 CyberAlert, when
the trial started last week in the case of Dirkhising, murdered in 1999 by
two gay men who bound him to a bed where he choked on his underwear and
was found covered in feces, the major media outlets, other than FNC and
the Washington Times, all ignored it. The New York Post's "MediaWatch"
column, however, pointed out that unlike in the arrests and indictments in
1999 the AP decided to cover the trial. As in 1999, the Fox News Channel
assigned Bret Baier to the case as FNC has been the only national network
covering the crime. For background on the Dirkhising case, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20010319.asp#6
I have not had time to thoroughly review all
network shows last night and this morning, but despite a Thursday
afternoon AP dispatch, I doubt any network but FNC picked up on the
conviction. It was not mentioned on the ABC, CBS or NBC evening shows and
I did not see it on MSNBC's The News with Brian Williams. CNN devoted
most of its prime time, including nearly all of the 8pm ET hour, to the
Mir. If it did generate any non-FNC TV coverage, I'll let you know in
the next CyberAlert. Friday's Washington Post gave it two sentences, but
two sentences which did not mention the sexual preference of the man
convicted or that Jesse Dirkhising was male.
From Bentonville, Arkansas the
AP's Brian Skoloff reported on March 22:
A jury convicted a man of first-degree murder Thursday in
the rape and killing of a 13-year-old boy, sparing the man from the death
penalty by rejecting a more serious capital murder count. Joshua Macabe
Brown, 23, faces up to life in prison for the death of Jesse Dirkhising.
The jurors already had voted Wednesday to convict Brown on a rape charge,
which also can carry a life sentence....
Jesse was drugged, bound, raped and sodomized in September
1999 at the apartment Brown shared with his gay lover, Davis Don
Carpenter, 39. Prosecutors said the boy suffocated because of the drugs
and the way he was trussed up and strapped down to Brown's bed. The
defense said Brown didn't intend to kill the boy and suggested the
bondage-sex was consensual....
Brown had admitted binding and gagging the boy and
sexually penetrating him with a variety of objects, but defense attorney
Louis Lim contended Brown was guilty of nothing more than statutory rape
The eight-woman, four-man jury did, however, receive piles
of evidence it requested to review. The items and papers included notes
and a diagram, a bloody pillow, duct tape and underwear that the state
said was stuffed into Jesse's mouth.
During closing arguments, prosecutor Bob Balfe told jurors
that logic shows the boy wasn't a willing participant in a sexual bondage
Making a late-night run for more duct tape, picking up
only two sandwiches instead of three, and leaving the child unattended all
prove the men weren't concerned about Jesse's welfare, Balfe said.
END Excerpt of AP dispatch
Now an excerpt from Andrew Sullivan's TRB
column in the upcoming April 2 New Republic which should hit newsstands on
Monday. On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume on Thursday night, during
the "Grapevine" segment, fill-in anchor Tony Snow noted
Sullivan's article. Sullivan, who is a prominent gay journalist, once
was Editor of the magazine and is now one of its Senior Editors.
What happened on September 26, 1999, to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising
can only be described as evil. Two men who had become friendly with Jesse
and his family invited the boy over for the day. According to prosecutors
at the trial now under way in Bentonville, Arkansas, the two men drugged
Jesse, tied him to a bed, shoved his underwear into his mouth to gag him,
added duct tape to silence him, raped him for hours using a variety of
objects, including food, and then left him in such a position on the bed
that he slowly suffocated to death.
Unless you frequent rabid right-wing sites on the Internet or read The
Washington Times, you've probably never heard of this case. The New York
Times has yet to run a single story about it. The Washington Post has run
only a tiny Associated Press report -- and an ombudsman's explanation of
why no further coverage is merited. Among certain, mainly gay-hating
right-wingers, the discrepancy between the coverage of this case and the
wall-to-wall coverage of the similarly horrifying murder of Matthew
Shepard proves beyond any doubt that the mainstream media is guilty of
Do they have a point? My first, defensive, reaction was no. And reading
the accounts from some right-wing outlets, any gay person would be
defensive. Some on the far right clearly want to use this case to raise
vicious canards about gay men. They want to argue that this pedophilic
rape-murder is representative of the "homosexual lifestyle" and
to wield it as a weapon against the notion of gay equality and dignity as
[W]hile pedophilia has always been a vile undercurrent in some gay
circles (as in some straight circles), the vast majority of homosexuals
are rightly horrified by the sexual abuse of children.
But, difficult as it may be to admit, some of the gay-baiting right's
argument about media bias holds up. Consider the following statistics. In
the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories about his
death. In the month after Dirkhising's murder, Nexis recorded 46 stories
about his. In all of last year, only one article about Dirkhising appeared
in a major mainstream newspaper, The Boston Globe. The New York Times and
the Los Angeles Times ignored the incident completely. In the same period,
The New York Times published 45 stories about Shepard, and The Washington
Post published 28. This discrepancy isn't just real. It's staggering.
In The Washington Post, a news editor argued that the paper covers only
crimes that are local, inflame local opinion, or have national policy
implications. The Shepard story was news in a way the Dirkhising story
wasn't because it "prompted debate on hate crimes and the degree to
which there is still intolerance of gay people in this country. It was
much more than a murder story for us." But wasn't the media's instant
blanket coverage part of the reason for the debate? If the Dirkhising
murder had been covered instantly with the same attention to gruesome
detail, wouldn't it, too, have prompted a national conversation?
You might argue that the Shepard murder was a trend story, highlighting
the prevalence of anti-gay hate crimes. But murders like Shepard's are
extremely rare. In 1997, a relatively typical recent year, the FBI
identified a total of eight hate-crime murders in the United States. The
number that were gay-specific was even smaller. Most years, two or three
occur at most. How common is a rape-murder like that of Dirkhising? In
1999 there were 46 rape-murders nationwide. If you focus not on the
rape-murder aspect but on the fact that Jesse was a child, there were
1,449 murders of minors. There are no reliable statistics on how many of
these murders were committed by homosexuals, but let's generously say 5
percent. That's a paltry 72 cases. In other words, the murders of Shepard
and Dirkhising are both extremely rare, and neither says much that can be
generalized to the wider world. So why the obsession with Shepard and the
indifference with regard to Dirkhising?
The answer is politics. The Shepard case was hyped for political
reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal
hate-crimes law. The Dirkhising case was ignored for political reasons:
squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed anti-gay prejudice,
and the lack of any pending interest-group legislation to hang a story on.
The same politics lies behind the media's tendency to extensively cover
white "hate crimes" against blacks while ignoring black
"non-hate crimes" against whites.
What we are seeing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture
that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths--if they affect a
politically protected class--are worth more than others. Other deaths,
those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion.
The leading gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign -- which
has raised oodles of cash exploiting the horror of Shepard's murder -- has
said nothing whatsoever about the Dirkhising case. For the HRC, the murder
of Jesse Dirkhising is off-message. Worse, there's a touch of
embarrassment among some gays about the case, as if the actions of this
depraved couple had some connection to the rest of gay America. Don't
these squeamish people realize that, by helping to hush this up, they seem
to confirm homophobic suspicions that this murder actually is typical of
To read Andrew Sullivan's entire piece, go
movie Erin Brockovich is up for several Oscars during Sunday night's
Academy Awards presentation, which prompted Michael Fumento to remind
National Review Online readers of the inaccuracies the movie portrayed in
showing an evil utility which caused cancer and other diseases through a
chemical in local drinking water.
The movie, starring Julia Roberts who was
nominated for "Best Actress" for her portrayal of the real-life
Erin Brockovich, was also nominated for "Best Picture" and
"Best Original Screenplay."
The March 21 National Review Online piece
carried this up front note: "By Michael Fumento, a senior fellow with
the Hudson Institute, where he's completing a book on advances in
biotechnology. His piece 'Erin Brockovich, Exposed' appeared in the
Wall Street Journal on March 28, 2000."
Now an excerpt:
What coincidental timing!
On March 8, three weeks before the Academy Awards, Universal Pictures
announced a $100,000 donation to UCLA "establishing a program to help
students pursue studies in environmental and social justice."
The purpose, said the corporation's press release, is to recognize
"The crusading efforts of [Erin] Brockovich and [attorney Ed] Masry
on behalf of the citizens of a small Southern California town plagued by
illnesses caused by contaminated groundwater [that] served as the basis
for Universal Pictures' acclaimed motion picture, Erin Brockovich."
By promoting in this manner a truly entertaining movie, Universal is
lionizing two truly villainous people. Long before he met Brockovich,
Masry handled a toxic tort suit in which he DEFENDED polluters of a lake
in Riverside, California. He even compared the environmental officials to
Yet three of the five defendants quickly pled guilty.
Masry was already well known in California, having been charged in 1981
with stealing from a religious cult he represented in order to bribe the
He was acquitted of the bribery charge but convicted of the theft. An
appeals court then overturned the theft charge on a technicality (lack of
a speedy trial) and the charges were dropped. Thus, Masry got off but was
Far from being "environmental crusaders" as the media now
routinely calls them, Masry and Brockovich have never crusaded for
anything but lucre.
In the case depicted in the film, Masry's firm along with two huge L.A.
firms, convinced residents of Hinkley, California that virtually any
illness they had ever suffered was from a chemical called chromium 6 that
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) had let seep into the water.
This includes (among other illnesses) nosebleeds, breast cancer,
rashes, lymphatic cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, lupus, stress,
chronic fatigue, miscarriages, gastrointestinal cancer, Crohn's disease,
spinal deterioration, kidney tumors, ovarian tumors, and "intestines
eaten away," which sounds awful but doesn't describe a real disease.
Obviously these can't all be related. Moreover, the lengthy discussion
of chromium 6 on the EPA's website, the agency that sets drinking-water
standards, concludes: "No data were located in the available
literature that suggested that chromium 6 is carcinogenic by the oral
route of exposure."
[Go to: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm]
To quote from those ubiquitous t-shirts, "What part of 'NO' don't
The literature does show is that chromium 6 can cause lung and nasal
cancer in workers who inhaled massive amounts over many years; even as it
reveals numerous studies of persons near living near toxic-waste sites
jam-packed with chromium 6 who had no increased level of any type of
Indeed, California's Cancer Registry found the same was true of Hinkley.
Brockovich claims she has "200 studies" that back her up, but
don't ask her to see them. Others have tried and failed.
The motivation of the three law firms was neither truth nor compassion,
but rather 40 percent of the winnings. Their "take" from the
settlement was $133 million plus an amazing $10 million more in expenses.
Brockovich's bonus alone was $2 million.
Justice doth have its rewards.
To understand why the bad guys won, it's important to know that the
case was a settlement not subject to appeal, that PG&E was suffering
terrible publicity, and that as a utility it could simply pass losses on
to rate payers.
But when these same three firms, including the Masry-Brockovich team,
tried the same ploy in the court system against a company with no
guaranteed income, it collapsed like a rotten pumpkin.
Last April a California appeals court tossed out their case against
Lockheed Martin, decertifying the class of plaintiffs. A major part of the
ruling was because of the obvious absurdity of saying that any ill person
in a given geographical area can be allowed to claim that a groundwater
contaminant caused their sickness.
But what of the Hinkley residents, who were truly victimized by Masry
and Brockovich? Our heroes convinced these poor families that they had
been poisoned and were now ticking time bombs of disease.
From their slice of the award, the disbursements appear utterly
One man who required a foot of colon to be removed collected $100,000
while a woman who endured the same operation got about $2 million. A
plaintiff offered Salon.com's Kathy Sharp an explanation for the
disbursement pattern: "If you were buddies with Ed and Erin, you got
a lot of money. Otherwise, forget it."
A Time magazine reporter in Hinkley heard similar complaints.
"Give me a break!" moaned one resident after seeing the film.
"They depicted the lawyers as so concerned about the residents,"
she said. "But does [Brockovich] really care?"
Ultimately, several plaintiffs hired new lawyers to sue their original
ones, only to find their new attorneys instantly countersued. One of the
newly retained attorneys said of the film, "I read the script; the
only true part was Erin Brockovich's name."...
To read Fumento's entire article, go to:
Tune in Sunday night on ABC to see if
Hollywood rewards a film which so distorted reality.
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers:
>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
@topica.com. Or, you can go to:
Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE
REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to firstname.lastname@example.org."
After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply
hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been
added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page
link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You DO
NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to:
Send problems and comments to: email@example.com.
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.<<<
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe