[Wright is right!]

"1. After a story aired on CBN concerning Vince Foster's suicide note , the major networks agreed not to do anymore stories about Vince Foster. I think it happened on April 8, 1996 but it could have been earlier."

The Xlinton White House leaned HARD on all the nets and the compliant newspapers to smother any Foster news. If any Foster news stories were in the works, word would be leaked to Sid and Georgie at the WH, and extreme pressure would immediately follow for the eds to spike the stories.

2. Peter Jennings finally did a special about the Jessie Durkins (sp?)

Durkhising

"story and how biased the media was about it. He said that even though half of America was talking about the story, he and his collegues "agreed" that it wasn't newsworthy."

That simply means that the New York Times wouldn't cover it because it didn't fit their agenda. Whatever the NYTimes covers is network news, and if it ain't in the Times, you won't see it on TV. There are items to local editors every day crossing the AP wires as heads-up pieces alerting everyone what the NYTimes is going to cover - and how. The TV editors tend to use these alerts as a guide to how THEY should cover a story.

It's a dirty li'l bidness.

Michael

[techcor]

Another funny thing about media bias is how they claim a story "got legs". What legs? A story is either done or not done based on whether they, in the media, will do it or not. It's like they think they can disassociate themselves from their jobs.
Another phrase the media does is "lucky". As in - "Boy, Al Gore Jr.(Al Gore's son) was lucky the media didn't pick up on his drunk driving stop." Or "Those Bush twins were unlucky the media did a story on their trying to buy alchol". Do the reporters actually flip a coin? Nope, just incredible bias.