How does media coverage of Hillary and Bill Clinton now compare to during Ken Starr's investigation?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Ken Starr was in 1994 appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate a series of matters related in some way to Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. His investigation touched on Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and the Monica Lewinsky affair, among other matters. It lasted over four years. The media understandably talked about both Clintons extensively during that period, frequently discussing matters not directly related to the execution of Bill Clinton duty as President of the United States. One can argue about whether they received good or bad press.

However the media treated them then, how does that compare to how it treats them now?

[existentialist]

1. as if fairness is the only question

The poll is pretty much nonsensical to my reading.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I left it open ended intentionally to encourage actual discussion

I am tired of push polls. But fairness is always relevent to me, and trends and perceptions of them are often significant.

[neutron]

15. We're Pulling the Plug on Cable

Cable News is a Corporate Puppet.
And Big Corporations are afraid of the Clintons.
You can watch any MSM channel, and it's all the same
Clinton bashing. Dick Morris on Fox, Blitzer on CNN,
and now, sadly Olbermann has joined
ranks with creep from the dark side Chris Matthews.
I think its taken a toll in Countdown ratings because
Olbermann is in the blogs trying to drum up business.
His former fans don't like being deceived.

[AtomicKitten]

3. This has nothing to do with the way anybody is being treated.

Bill Clinton's intention is to draw all negative press from Hillary onto himself and to stymie Obama's message by constantly attacking him.

Bill Clinton is getting precisely the amount and kind of press he intends. Make no mistake about that.

[robbedvoter]

5. stats of coverage:

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JEDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36

[Auntie Bush]

9. Well that's a surprise. I hadn't noticed the media were negative about mcCain. I actually thought

I actually thought they were pushing McCain. Shows ya what I know. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. That might have to do with the time window covered?

The Republican establishment does NOT want McCain. They wanted Rudy. If they couldn't have Rudy they wanted Thompson. If they couldn't have Thompson they wanted Romney. It they can't have Romney THEN they will settle for McCain because the don't want Huckabee. I think the media knows the tune. With Thompson out and Rudy leaving they may have to soften on McCain. The fact that McCain actually has some popular support and real experience was never that relevent to his media coverage. He was written off after all.

[Auntie Bush]

17. Excellent explanation...as usual.

Tom hits head on nail...ouch!

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I included Hillary. Comment only on the relative coverage of her if you want. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

12. That's impossible because they aren't separate entities in this.

If you object to their tag-team coverage, perhaps they shouldn't be operating as a tag-team in a presidential election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Other works great. Discussion is not limited by predetermined constraints n/t

[robbedvoter]

4. As fair as it ever was - if far more intense.

The perception here may be divided though, because one candidate is the temporary beneficiary of the very same agenda.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I choose "about as fair" also

When Bill Clinton first took office he was anything but a divisive candidate, and he clearly tried not to govern as one. That drove the Republicans nuts because they were in love with demonizing tax and spend criminal coddling liberal Democrats and Clinton was side stepping that line of attack. Somehow though Clinton got at least equal blame for the polorizing of America, while Hillary was attacked for not knowing her place, and I think the media had a heavy hand in all of that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. In using the duration of the Starr investigation as a base line

it would be helpful if responders compared their impression of then and now - what did you feel about media coverage of the Clintons then, what do you think about it now?

[ArkySue]

13. Media coverage then...

We here in Arkansas knew it was going to be ugly when Starr and Co. showed up and started leasing offices for the long term. They stayed here for years looking under every rock and into every nook and cranny.

Media coverage now is about the same, they just don't have as much shit to dish out this time.

ps- Hi Tom!

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Hi ArkySue. Damn that must have been creepy in a really chilling way

Both Hillary and Bill Clinton's past has been thoroughly mined for dirt. And they both were left with the shaft.

[robbedvoter]

21. Hi Arky Sue! Long time no see!

[ArkySue]

22. Hi robbedvoter!

You ought to visit ccn sometime. Lots of us still there. :)

[Auntie Bush]

19. I thought it was horribly unfair then and it's now approaching the same venom.

And guaranteed to get equally as unfair...if not worse if Hillary won the nomination. The media are just getting started. But that doesn't mean we should take our best candidate and throw her under the bus just because we might/will have to listen to their bullsh** for the next 9 years. We'd be playing directly into their playbook. I wouldn't give them the satisfaction! I'd love to rub their faces in the Clintons for years. Won't they just hate to have Bill back in the white house adding his 2 cents. Gingrich and Morris will have a heart attack...I hope.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I'm for putting the batter in at clean up...

...who has the most experience facing major league pitching. Others may feel differently.

[Lint Head]

8. I've heard very little about a

"BLOW JOB" from the media this time around. The American people seem to not care about it either. That's encouraging. :dem:

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. There is nothing fair about the treatment the press give Clinton.