Have you noted any differences in 1990 newsmedia and 2000 newsmedia?

[blm]

List your observations here, please.

[zbdent]

1. I was going to say that the difference was that the 90s media was willing

to attack Bill Clinton, and then my premise started to fall apart, because the 2000s media was still willing to attack Bill Clinton ...

I guess that it would be more realistic if I said that the 90s media was willing to constantly attack THE PRESIDENT, whereas the 2000s media coddles THE PRESIDENT ...

[blm]

2. The early 90s media was willing to give Clinton a chance. I think it was

the Insurance agencies who turned the media against Clinton - they're big advertisers - AFTER he took office, and then the 95 takeover by the GOP and the 96 telecommunications bill sealed the deal with the media. After that they could be BLATANT in their shilling for the corporate bottom line.

[lectrobyte]

3. I seem to recall more of a change between 1980 and 1990 than

1990 and 2000, but that's just me perhaps. There still seemed to be some notion of investigative journalism, exposure of corruption, etc. in the early 80's, but then Reagan changed all that. By 1990, it seemed one big bland ball of corporate shit.

[blm]

4. I don't think they were as blatant about their corporatism until they got

a GOP congress in, and made sure the telecommunications bill passed.

I don't think that bill would pass today with most Dems knowing what they do now.