You say you don't believe parts of the media have a strong bias to color their stories by leaving out something that is relevant? Are you sure? Ask yourself whether the fact this town is the current legal resident a sitting US SENATOR and a former President of the US of A is "relevant". Especially when the story makes "90210" look like fact not fiction. (Don't bother to insert points about "Peyton Place" has been around a long time. Dunces know that.)

NOTE ALSO: this is not exactly a favorable story about that town. Then ask why were its two most favorite residents not mentioned?

Now, High Schools' Sex Gossip Is Scrawled on Web Site Walls

Sexual gossip among teenagers has been showing up lately in what some educators and others call a disturbingly powerful forum: Internet sites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/06/technology/06WEB.html -----

June 6, 2001

Now, High Schools' Sex Gossip Is Scrawled on Web Site Walls

By WINNIE HU

HAPPAQUA, N.Y., June 5 — It used to be the stuff of locker rooms, bathroom walls and little black books, but sexual gossip among teenagers has been showing up lately in what some educators and others call a disturbingly powerful forum: Internet sites.

The police in this well-to-do Westchester suburb said Monday that two male seniors at Horace Greeley High School were arrested last week for posting a Web site that listed names, phone numbers and what were said to be the sexual exploits of dozens of female classmates. Some of the youths' friends had a password that allowed them to view the site and, in some cases, add information, students said today.

Similarly, students at some of the most selective private schools in Manhattan visited a Web page this spring to vote for the students they considered to be the most promiscuous. They voted on about 150 names — girls' names outnumbered boys' 3 to 1 — before the page was shut down last month following complaints by parents and students, the authorities said today. The incident was first reported last week in The New Yorker.

Although apparently not related, both episodes represent the increasingly sophisticated and public manner in which students are choosing to share the most intimate details of their friends' lives and their own. While a black book or a message scrawled on a bathroom wall may be seen by only a handful of people, Web sites and e-mail messages can spread this gossip to thousands within minutes.

Deborah M. Roffman, a Baltimore teacher and the author of "Sex and Sensibility: The Thinking Parent's Guide to Talking Sense About Sex," said she knew of three other Web sites and a couple of dozen e-mail messages created by students in the last few years to spread sexual gossip, mainly about girls.

"There is no school probably in the country where students are not sending this kind of information by e-mail," she said. "It reinforces the sexual double standard that is grossly unfair to boys and girls. It is girls' names that are being put out there."

In Chappaqua, school district officials notified the New Castle Police Department after learning of the Web site posted by the two seniors. Police officials have not released the names of the students, who are both 18, citing departmental policy in cases involving youths. The police did not return repeated phone calls today. School officials and prosecutors have also declined to release the names of the boys, who have been charged with aggravated harassment.

At the tight-knit high school, which has 1,016 students, the mood was guarded this afternoon, but several students spoke out about the Web page. Matt Stromberg, a sophomore who was waiting for his father outside the school gates, said he was outraged.

"I think that anyone who'd be stupid enough to post someone's names on the Internet deserves whatever's coming to them," he said.

Other students expressed shock and disgust that two of their own had posted the site. They described the boys as popular seniors who sang in school a cappella groups and played musical instruments. They were not, many classmates said, overbearing.

"They were liked by so many people, you would never think these would be the type of kids who would do something like this," said Mike, a sophomore, who would not give his last name. "They even put their girlfriends on the site."

Several girls said the police had shown them parts of the Web site. One sophomore said her best friend had been described in detail on the Web site and had cried about it for days afterward.

Aside from the sexual activities of the girls, the site also commented on their looks, eating habits and even their parents' marital problems. According to one girl, more than 30 names listed in a red column were accompanied by embarrassing personal information. Dozens of other names were simply listed in a blue column.

"It was the same gossip that you'd hear in the cafeteria, except written down and published, which is what made it horrendous," said a female junior. "It said stuff like, `If you want to be with this girl, she's into this stuff.' "

Donald Parker, the superintendent of the Chappaqua school district, said school officials took the matter seriously.

"It's just not appropriate to put information about other people on a Web site," he said. "We all realize that since Columbine, things have changed."

Mr. Parker said that "appropriate disciplinary action" had been taken against the boys, but would not elaborate further. Several parents and students said the boys had been suspended for five days, and had not yet returned for classes.

The Web page at which Manhattan private-school students voted for the most promiscuous girl or boy was created by someone who identified herself (or perhaps himself) as Nicole Blair, on a site owned by a University of Washington student and other people.

Melissa Jackson, a deputy district attorney in Brooklyn who investigated complaints about the page, said it did not list telephone numbers and addresses, and identified many of the girls only by first name. Her office decided not to pursue the case.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Answers

Another question might be would the local "most popular" restaurant call in the fuzz if Chelsea Clintstone's younger friends ordered a brewski with their whopper and fries?

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

No, the only relevant question is why does it matter WHO lives in the town? Does he have anything to do with this?

The Answer: NO.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001

Hey Doomzies,

I know it's just killing you that the Bush girls were actually cited for their lawbreaking, isn't it? After all, Chuy's is going to get what they have coming for calling the cops on a member of the Bush family from you and your GOP pals, hm? How dare they! After all, this had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's penis!

It's pathetic that you would think the above article must reference Bill and Hillary Clinton, since they've done nothing but simply own a home in Chappaqua. What exactly do they have to do with local high school boys misusing the Internet? Exactly as much as other prominent homeowners of Chappaqua who aren't family members or those named on the website do. NOTHING.

BTW, it's got to hurt that Chelsea Clinton took the lemons life handed her over the past eight years and made lemonade out of them. I hope that Jenna and Barbara's parents enjoy visiting them at a) jail and b) Betty Ford.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Here Doomie is how the press misleads http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=005Q2c

SEE the dif? good, you are a lernin kid!

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

The headline is priceless ("US Holds Up Release of Reagan Papers" -- yep, the "liberal media" in action there), but you've got to love the "excuse" even more (emphasis mine):

``We've asked for a short extension in order for the documents to undergo a legal review at the Justice Department,'' she said. ``The extension was requested to ensure that the Presidential Records Act is implemented correctly. We are setting precedent for future administrations. It's important that we address all the relevant issues.''

Uh, yeah, like "what did the dinosaurs Junior appointed say and do back then that they can't remember now?". Brings back memories of Reagan (no pun intended), "I can't recall"....."I can't recall"....."I can't recall".....

ROTFLMAO..... No "spin" there, eh Charlie?

Seems to me Rove(r) overlooked something major here. Uh oh ..... could he be losing his touch?

I'm kind of curious as to why the "liberal media" didn't report this when the extension was first granted. Hmmmm.....curiouser and curiouser. You would have thought they'd just be **all over this**, I mean, being the "liberal media" and all. (snicker ... again)

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

LOL -- as of 1:00 PM PDT, the headline now reads:

Reagan Papers' Release Held Up

Oh that damn "liberal media".....

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2001

Patricia,

You might be surprised to find that I agree with you in the main. Having been back at work in the Evil Media for a few years, things HAVE changed. The conservative point of view is FAR more likely to get a hearing nowdays that in times past.

Paul Davis' comments over at the old Roost made me rethunk my position, and now that I've been there and done that (still don't have a shirt, but that's an aside), I can address this.

Is the media liberal? Depends on the media. There are media organs now ranging from Atilla-the-Hunish to Falwellish to Stokely-Carmichalish to just plain Wierd-ish (especially on the Web).

(Do I get a prize for the most ish in one sentence? I ish!)

The only mistake that I see people (on ALL sides) make frequently is automatically assuming that ownership translates to direct editorial control. For example, when Doc points out that the Moonies own the Washington Post, or that Murdock owns this paper or that someone else owns that radio group, the implication is that this AUTOMATICALLY taints all of their coverage toward the conservative point of view.

Now, THAT's not the case.

Perfect example: Both Peter Jennings and David Brinkley have described themselves as a liberal democrats in interviews -- THEIR words, not mine. When Cap Cities bought ABC a while back, their jobs were never in danger. They continued to work and to exercise considerable control over This Week and World News Tonight.

This is in spite of the fact that the owners of Cap Cities -- originally based in Durham, NC, did you know that? -- were quite conservative. (And stingy. Some of us though that Peter and David might take the long walk just because of their high salaries![g])

This doesn't mean that there was no effect; one big one was that John Stossel got more air time and was able to do stories on "safe" nuclear power and things like that. But as far as ABC changing overnight from a flaming liberal organ (which it never was) to a neanderthalishly conservative one (which it never was) just because Cap Cities bought it, well ... never happened.

(I remember this one in particular because some of my friends on the Religious Right *WERE* hoping that there would be drastic changes made.[g])

Now, when you start talking about Murdoch and Fox, you have a wierd situation. Fox News *IS* conservative, no doubt about it. But at the same time, the Fox entertainment network runs programs which the Religious Right considers almost hellishly offensive. Go figure. :)

What this boils down to is plain good business. When someone buys a network or a newspaper (or whatever), he/she wants to make money. If the current staff is making money, they usually keep their jobs.

And yes, there is some cynical realism here. A paper that caters to Atlanta, for example, is going to have a far more "liberal" tone than, say, the Birmingham News here. This is in spite of ownership; it's just plain realism. If you're trying to sell papers to the black folks in inner-city 'Lanta, you're NOT going to do it by plastering stories about the Wonders of Reaganomics on the front page. :)

So with radio programming. While talk radio is decidedly conservative (there's an understatement![g]), radio programmers in the main run the political gamut. Here again, it's just plain business: people in this area like country, people in that area like urban with lots of social commentary. We want to sell commercials ("spots," if you're kewl), so we hire people whom we might disagree with STRONGLY ... solely because the audience likes them.

(You caught a glimpse of this in Howard Stern's movie. His bosses *HATED* him passionately, but kept him on because, at the end of the day, he dragged in truckloads of cash. The bottom line ruled.)

Some of this is also sheer logistics. I used to work with a group that went in and rescued failing radio stations, and I assure you, political persuasion and philosophy had NOTHING to do with whom we decided to retain. In fact, we usually kept the present staff (except for management, the theory being that they were the ones who'd let it fail, so why would we want them?[g]) for the simple reason that we COULDN'T replace them all overnight. It simply wasn't possible.

Finally, I do see one other error made here (not by you, but by others), the idea that corporations in general are automatically conservative and/or evil and/or whatever. That's simply not true. The folks who led the protests in the 60's are taking over the board rooms now and many large companies practice politics that are anything BUT conservative.

(Ted Turner is a classic example here.)

But I *DO* agree with you that the idea of the "Evil Liberal Media" is a very tired, very hackneyed canard that has long since outlived its usefulness. The bidness *has* changed.

I guess the only place where we'd disagree is in assuming that it's all the way one way or another -- liberal OR conservative. It's a gelatinous mix, with strong regional variations.

And that's coming from someone right smack in the middle of it.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Wow! the windbag checks-in and states the obvious. A business? oh the horror! and they have the nerve to tailor their content to their audience? what are they nuts? lol.

Now Poole maybe you would like to comment on the afore referenced AP story on the Reagan Papers.

Might also want to speculate on the question Trish raised about the earlier ruling not being covered.

I so not expect anything from you beyond "so what", but surprise me.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

A ha! He's back :-)

First up, a slight correction: The Moonies own The Washington Times, and it DOES make a difference. To my knowledge, there has never been (since the Unification "church" took ownership) even a HINT of a MODERATE position shown in an article. They also own UPI now.....same result.

Yes, of course that's an exaggeration, but one that isn't far from the truth.

Re Jennings ... "This doesn't mean that there was no effect..." The "effect" was slightly more than John Stossel getting more air time, Stephen. As I said, they read what's put on the teleprompter. I'd be genuinely surprised if they wrote any of it. Again, they're hypocrites, who enjoy their life styles I suppose.

Re Fox ... Murdoch will do anything for money, the religious right be damned (uh, that didn't come out quite as I had hoped, but it is unintentionally funny). He recognized there's more **money** in right-wing "news" programming (please, Stephen, call it what it is) than in fair and balanced reporting (snicker).

So, what do we have now -- One Talking Head, One Question and ... Ted Turner? Please 'splain to me how you figure Turner's stations reflect his politics? Both TBS and TNT run "family programming" ... the wholesome kind one would find on PAX. Yes, it's quite the conundrum (I love that word!) when you put this fact against Murdoch and his sleazy FOX "shows".

But I defy you to find me a "liberal slant" on TBS or TNT or now CNN (which has almost completed the switch to "conservative" (sic) "reporting"). Could it be 'cause he's not the full owner any longer?

Do you honestly think GE is going to allow Brokaw to bash big business or an issue near and dear to them on the NBC Nightly News? Do you honestly think Disney is going to allow Jennings to do it? Who owns CBS these days -- Viacom? Yet Another Big Conglomerate. (Oddly enough, Rather would be the one I'd expect to be able to "slip" something in there because of the station ownership.)

Want to stick by that statement?

I still find two things on this thread screamingly funny: Charlie has YET to answer my question as to WHY it was so hellfire important to mention Clinton in this story (which he WAS mentioned, as I pointed out, in another version of this) and WHY the headline of the article Doc posted kinda-sorta "hid" the truth.......TWICE.

It's a howl that there are people out there who STILL claim a "liberal media". Uh huh. These were the same "liberals" who ran with every last Clinton Scandal of the Week for over eight years. These same people who claim "liberal media" ALSO claim this same "liberal media" DEFENDED Clinton; the same "liberal media" who ran with every last Clinton Scandal of the Week. "Truth" and "balance" didn't seem to matter (as it still doesn't).

I wonder how they reconcile that in their brains? I wonder if it even occurs to them? I would have to doubt it else there'd be a lot more Prozac prescriptions among the right wing.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Forgot to address something...

This is in spite of the fact that the owners of Cap Cities -- originally based in Durham, NC, did you know that? -- were quite conservative. (And stingy. Some of us though that Peter and David might take the long walk just because of their high salaries![g])

To where did anyone expect them "to walk", Stephen? Another conglomerate-owned network? The new owners weren't goint to get rid of their cash cows (The Greed Factor). John Stossel ain't Peter Jennings, at least not in the eyes of the Viewing Public.

And what a scream -- the guy's a Canadian.

Anyway, while the talking heads (NOT "reporters") do read what's put on the teleprompter in front of them, it wouldn't surprise me if every now and again they slipped something of themselves in there.

Much to the dismay of Management.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Doc,

Sure it was obvious, but sometimes the obvious gets overlooked. "Forest for the trees" and all that.

Just for the record, that's one reason why I stopped trying to do the "People and money behind Y2K" stuff. Not only was it rapidly becoming a dead issue (and not only was I rapidly losing interest to boot), it's unfair to assume guilt by association defacto.

On the Reagan library: I can't even give you a "so what," because to be completely honest, I haven't been following that story.

Patricia,

Yup, it's Times, not Post. I knew that, my fingers just didn't connect to my fevered brain at that moment.

And yeah, I'm back for a moment or two. Sorry my first reply ends up being a Patented Screed. :)

Like I said, I agree in the main; that's the key point. The media are considerably more "conservative" than they were, say, 10 years ago. There have been some major changes. I'm NOT saying that the buyouts have had no effect; of course they have.

I just thought I'd provide a perspective from someone who's in Da Bidness. No, Jennings doesn't write most of his stories, but he DOES have signficant influence in which stories are covered, and more importantly, in how much time is budgeted and in story placement.

What I'm saying is, it's wrong to use the old "Liberal Mainstream Media" bromide, but it's just as wrong to assume that the media has shifted entirely the other way. The media is just ... the media.

My biggest concern is the fact that many news organizations are now run by entertainment types, who deliberately scale things down for a pablum-oriented audience. It's all about ratings and money now.

THAT'S the real problem, not "bias" (real or imagined).

But you knew that, too. :)

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Call me a cynic (you'd be right), but I doubt Jennings et al write ANY of their "stories" or have ANY say in what goes on the air and what doesn't.

JMO, but the past eight-nine years pretty much proved to ME who was "running the show", and it sure wasn't any "liberal media".

At least you didn't call them "reporters". Heh.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

"it's unfair to assume guilt by association defacto. "

Maybe true 20 years ago, not today. In fact today one is better off assuming content from certain sources biased and tainted, and thus worthless as to content. You may miss a few stories which pass unfiltered no doubt. However these are available elsewhere and you save yourself the time and hassle of trying to figure out which is which from the worst of the hucksters. Would you trust WorldNetDaily to report unbiasedly?

I think the real problem is the wireservices. A given the users will tailor the copy for their target audiences. The wires used to be "just the facts", no spin, no nuttin. The filtering, the tailoring is now happening at the source.

I believe this goes on since so few Journalists actually exist in the News Media today. The few who remain do not call the shots or are overridden routinely.

Take this Reagan Papers deal. In the first paragraph it is obvious this is the Bush Administration. The headline COULD NOT have been written by the reporter, it makes no sense. The headline was written by the spinner, the "editor" aka filter. Thus your problem. Further confirmation comes from the fact the headlines get changed hours and days later, routinely it seems. This indicates positively this is going on.

It is unclear from this Reagan Papers example who is actually writing the headline. I have not found this story anyplace else. The spinsters elsewhere have all decided to edit the thing completely out.

Whatever the problem with Journalism the blame lies at the feet of the consuming public. Bunch of idiots is what they are. SAPS, sponges who lost the ability to know the truth long ago. Most NEVER had the ability. No wonder we have the sorry state of News that we do.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Sorry state of news?

Again back to the Reagan Paper story. WHAT exactly IS the story there? The fact the Bush Administration is holding up the release of PUBLIC information. Nothing "secret" in those documents, so what are they afraid of? DIRT is what, and the reason the stall.

I think this extremely important the American People know their government does not want to be open. They want to control the flow of information YOU and I get to see. Tends to be important if we want a Free Society. See the First Amendment if this is all new to you somehow. Saying nothing to the issue of ownership of said material, WE own it, not BUSH. Where doe he get off on trying to bury this info?

Knowing this attempt by the Bush Administration to stall the release (and edit, lets not delude ourselves here)of this 12 year-old information makes their entire Administartion highly suspect in my book. They are looking the founding principles of this nation in the face and saying they do not follow as much. They are looking the LAW in the face and saying they are above it.

Should one be surprised? No if one followed the Florida BS this is yet another in a long string of baloney in just the first 5 months of this Rogue Administration. Started corrupt, and will probably end so despite their lame efforts at propaganda trying to convince the American people to think they are not what they most definitely are, corrupt.

You want a better society? More honesty? Courtesy? Try ridding the Government of the Scum America. Rest will take care of itself.

Now Poole care to address the issues? or are we going to get the same buttkissing bs you posted before stating the Obvious?

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Address the issue Poole or hit the road Jackson.

I know the drill. Diversion, neat if one is chatting with screwballs. Well newsflash, you ain't. This ain't work where your rap will fly, get it?

ADDRESS the issue. Not more of your diversionary bs you tossed back originally. Ya we all know the media is a business, so what.

Truth will set you free, member? Do you approve of the Bush Administration attempts at burying this information?

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001

Well, isn’t this special, The bug-eyed freak and his pet hippo playing tag team again. Oh what the hell, it must beat having to talk to each other, huh?

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

I agree that the media are more Conservative than 20 years ago. The question is "why"? IMO, this is a market phenomenon. Fox News found a niche and ran with it. Guess what, there were many people in that niche. Likewise, Rush Limbaugh. No one was saying what he said, until he said it. No one is forced to listen but many do.

The market is only one factor. The Internet and cable TV have destroyed the old monopolies on reporting news and expressing opinion and, alas, tabloid journalism is co-opting serious journalism in all media.

The politics of owners has always been less important than the politics of reporters and editors. Now, finally, the politics of the consumers is the determinant. I appreciate media that no longer condescend to me. I appreciate market driven media that give me a choice.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2001