In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
List-Unsubscribe: 
Reply-To: Sean Peck 
Precedence: bulk
Status: O
X-Status: 

-----------> This message was posted to the ONLINE-NEWS list. <-----------


> -----------> This message was posted to the ONLINE-NEWS list. <-----------
> 
> I heard Gary Webb talk about his new book-length version of "Dark
> Allilance" and asked him the same question.  His take was that Internet and
> talk radio gave his story legs.  Many of the key allegations had been
> reported before, but had never been followed up on because, Webb claims,
> major outlets didn't pursue it, ala Watergate, and the stories simply fell
> off everyone's radar scope. 

	I can agree with this, many of the stories that came out in 96
regarding fund raising I had heard at least 6 months prior, some I had
heard about for years via other sources, and most of
them were verified when the "main stream" was forced to actually look into
it.  What makes me curious is WHY the main stream waited so long to look
at it?  Are editors/publishers/writers just too willing to accept the 'its
just right wing conspiracy garbage'?  Before making any attempt to verify
the facts?  Same could be said of allegations of obstruction etc by
Clinton, especially regarding women.  Why is it that Dick Morris can imply
Hillary is something other than heterosexual on a LA radio show and it
makes every paper?  But he out and out says the President used campaign
funds to hire investigators to look into the pasts of women he slept with
and dig up dirt to intimidate them signing affidavits denying they slept
with him, not once but twice on National TV shows in the same week and not
one major paper even mentions it?
 
> Webb's take is that these two new media made it possible for people who
> heard about the issue later to quickly and easily find the complete story
> --not to mention the extensive documentation -- online and judge for
> themselves whether or not there was any merit to the reporting.  
> 
> In his opinion, it was only when this widespread grass-rots interest began
> putting pressure on Congress did the NYTimes, WaPost weigh in with their
> versions.  In his final analysis, the power of the Net gave the story life,
> but the power of the mainstream papers to set the national agenda prevailed
> in the end.  

	Well I think I would agree with it.... if the main stream ignores
it, does not mean it is not fact, just the bulk of the public does not
know.  But I can give you a better example, Executive Order regarding
federalism signed on May 14 I believe , by Clinton.  This order would have
totally
usurped the rights of the states, yet main stream COMPLETELY ignored it.
Only mention I found was when the Governors at their conference went off
on it... The story has been going on since just about the time Clinton
signed it on Radio and Internet, yet other than when the governors went
off the 'Main Stream' has not mentioned it other than an occassional
letter to editor... 
	I am sure there are many other stories, these are just some that I
personally followed and can vouch for.
 
	But getting back to original question, how in general are
organizations handling stories coming to them through this new(er) medium?
Are they dismissed out of hand, or treated the same as any other potential
lead?


Sean Peck
News Index -- The original News Only Search Engine.
http://www.newsindex.com/



->  ONLINE-NEWS uses Lyris mailing list software. http://www.lyris.com  <-
-> Change your list settings:  http://www.planetarynews.com/online-news <-
->   Online-News is archived: http://www.planetarynews.com/on-archive   <-
You are subscribed to online-news as: [rballard@access.digex.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this msg to leave-online-news-20155U@clio.lyris.net
SPONSOR: Knight Ridder Real Cities - http://www.realcities.com


From bounce-online-news-20155@clio.lyris.net Fri Jul 31 12:18:39 1998
>From bounce-online-news-20155@clio.lyris.net  Fri Jul 31 12:18:38 1998
Received: from clio.lyris.net (clio.lyris.net [207.90.155.3])
	by pony-2.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA14319
	for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by clio.lyris.net with Lyris Server version 2.548; 31 Jul 98 08:58:39 PDT7
Received: from indra.com (net.indra.com [204.144.142.1])
	by server.indra.com (8.8.5/) with ESMTP id KAA01459
	for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:12:11 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5])
	by indra.com (8.8.5/Spike-8-1.0) with ESMTP id KAA21178
	for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:02:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id LAA03105 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:01:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from host3.toledoblade.com(208.16.183.14) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma003010; Fri Jul 31 11:01:22 1998