<o>#clip

<des>

     The anti-Bush pro-Clinton bias of the press was
     exceptionally brazen in 1992. (Barnes New Republic 11/30/92)

<doctype>magazine article
<author>Barnes, Fred
<title>Washington Diarist: O.K., you win
<magazine>The New Republic
<date>November 30, 1992
<vol>207
<num>23
<pages>43

<excerpt>

     I don't have to worry about becoming "a frequent Clinton
     defender." Others, many, many, many others, have a prior
     claim on that. No one denies the press tilted toward Clinton
     during the campaign and was hostile to Bush. Egregious as
     that was, there was something much worse. The press was
     unashamedly pro-Clinton. I think an important line was
     crossed. In pre-1992 days, journalists insisted they didn't
     really favor one candidate over another. This wasn't
     true--they usually promoted the more liberal candidate--but
     to maintain the pretense of fairness, they had to restrain
     themselves. This year the restraint was gone. Instead of
     denials, reporters offered explanations for their
     cheerleading for Clinton. A new president would be a better
     story to cover in Washington. They were compensating for
     having pounded Clinton too hard last winter over Gennifer
     Flowers and the draft (in truth, they'd scarcely pounded at
     all). Bush deserved rougher treatment. And so on. I hope
     campaign coverage isn't permanently changed the way
     Washington was when lobbyists came out of the closet a
     decade or two ago. For years they insisted they were merely
     lawyers. Their grubbing for influence and money was muted.
     Now, as self-proclaimed lobbyists, they've turned Washington
     into a big casino.

</o>