Letters To The Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

October 09, 2003

Bush's record doesn't merit positive press

In "President seeing shades of '92" (Opinion * Commentary, Oct. 2), Linda Chavez accuses "the press" (of which she is part) of engaging in some sort of anti-President Bush smear campaign and being "out to prove that the economy is in the toilet and the U.S. military victory in Iraq is irrelevant."

In what world does Ms. Chavez live?

The state of our economy speaks for itself. We hemorrhage jobs and the deficit explodes and the stock market staggers. This is not an invention of the press; it's reality.

And there is not, as yet, a military victory in Iraq, making commentary on its "relevance" rather premature. We have not won a victory while soldiers continue to die daily and the remnants of the Baath government still wait in the wings for our withdrawal.

Ms. Chavez blames the president's failure to get more positive press coverage on the press (herself excepted, one supposes), not on the fact that he doesn't do anything deserving of positive coverage.

But this president only does two things well - he gives tax cuts to the rich, and he then goes to an endless series of fund-raisers in which the rich give a tiny fraction of those tax cuts back to him in the hope that he'll keep cutting taxes for another four years.

All that can be asked of a president is that he leave the country in better shape than he found it. But by every conceivable measure this president has failed to live up to that obligation. Our economy is a shambles, the budget is a mess, the environment is being raped, we are widely despised abroad, Mr. Bush's war turns dead Americans into profits for Halliburton and we are no safer from terrorism than we were on Sept. 11.

How is this the press' fault? And how, given these facts, can the president reasonably expect laudatory coverage?

Robert Taylor Jr.

Timonium

Fox isn't alone in showing bias

In regard to David Folkenflik's article summarizing the University of Maryland's study on invalid viewpoints gleaned by viewing various media outlets, I just had to laugh at the pretentiousness of it all ("Study hits war views held by Fox fans," Oct. 4).

A well-rounded article would have also considered those supposedly respected media outlets that push the view that Saddam Hussein was never a threat, that the CIA counseled the president not to attack, that the Iraqi population wants us out and that the war was for Big Oil, to name just a few points.

These viewpoints at times are suggested even by The Sun and most wholeheartedly by The New York Times as well as other major print media.

I agree that people may come to erroneous viewpoints based on the news outlet they use. However, to single out Fox based on one study from the University of Maryland is bad journalism at its best.

Joseph Weiss

Annapolis

An alternative to leftist media

How good of The Sun to inform those of us who watch Fox News that our views are erroneous and we are not among the elite group who consume NPR and network news ("Study hits war views held by Fox fans," Oct. 4).

Those of us who watch Fox do so because we desire an alternative to the media's reflexive conservative-baiting and unquestioning acceptance of leftist sociopolitical agendas.

The Sun perpetuates cultural conflict by printing this kind of confrontational propaganda and insinuating that those with a conservative world view are troglodytes.

Eric Sundell

Reisterstown

Can a body-builder rebuild California?

It will be interesting to see how Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former body-builder, can rebuild California, since he didn't seem to have a clue during the campaign about how to do so ("Davis out, Schwarzenegger in," Oct. 8).

I'm beginning to wonder seriously about my beloved country.

Has the electorate gone completely mad?

Velva Grebe

Towson

Leak could aid nation's enemies

I'd like to add one observation to the comments on naming an independent counsel in the letter "Name a counsel to investigate leak" (Oct. 2): If the leak had occurred on the Democrats' watch, you can be sure many Republicans would be crying "treason."

After all, exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is tantamount to "aiding the enemy" - an accusation some Republicans have been laying on anyone who criticizes the Bush administration.

And here we may have a criminal act that really could aid the enemy. Isn't that treason?

Kim Johnson

Baltimore

Corruption taints Wall St. analysts

Is it any wonder that Wall Street corruption is so pervasive given that stock analyst Frank P. Quattrone was paid almost $120 million in one year, largely in bonus compensation ("Witness tells of warning Quattrone on same day as e-mail about files," Oct. 4)?

A stock analyst is paid to be an impartial scrutinizer of companies' future financial performance. Historically, most analysts labored in positions with relatively modest pay and little or no access to large bonuses; thus their work, although not always correct, at least was objective and honest.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.