Depending on Your Politics   

Rachel Smolkin's "Are the News Media Soft on Bush?" is a deeply flawed analysis of reality. Had Smolkin considered the treatment of the Gennifer Flowers scandal on "60 Minutes," where hard-hitting Don Hewitt worked with the Clintons to help defuse the scandal?

Perhaps it is policy that is important? Would one like to compare the bombing of Iraq without any real questions asked of Bill Clinton? The bombing of a drug manufacturing plant? The refusal to save Rwandans?

Is it possible that one of the reasons George W. Bush connected the Niger uranium dot is that his administration was excoriated in the press for not connecting the dots in the 9/11 attacks?

Did Bill Clinton lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in 1998? I ask because if Bush lied, then, too, did Clinton!

Poll after poll indicates that the American people think the news media is biased to the left of center. The real arrogance of the journalist is that they seem to claim that only journalists can judge whether or not they are biased. In the final analysis, the American public serves as the best judge--the press is biased to the left of center.

H. Michael Sarkisian
Sacramento, California

Regarding "Are the Media Soft on the Bush Administration?": Is the Pope a Roman Catholic?

How many dead American soldiers (300 and counting, today) will it take before the national media start reporting the fact that the United States is losing an illegal war (undeclared, remember?) that did not need to be fought (no weapons of mass destruction, remember?)? When the number of American dead reaches 500, and then 1,000, I hope the media remember that this was all supposed to be a "cakewalk."

The U.S. media today are upholding the journalistic standards of 1898.

Brad Smith
Los Angeles, California