Letter: Media should listen when people have had enough

The first was from a CNN commentator. This woman just finished an interview with a person on the street who expressed her disgust with the media coverage of the whole affair. The commentator closed with, "You may be tired of it all, but we're not."

The second came from one of the moronic crew of "Good Morning America," who stated that in spite of the public outrage with the coverage, too many columnists/journalists and news bureaus had too much invested in their investigations to let it go, regardless of the public disgust with their reporting.

Since when has "news" been determined by the dollar value of the bureaus reporting it? It's too bad that they stand to lose money and time. Real businesses do it all the time in their research labs; it's an intrinsic part of doing business.

Whether Clinton told us upfront or not is very unimportant when one considers that the same people who are beating this horse to death are the people who created the atmosphere in which it all occurred. Browbeating the president, unrelenting innuendoes, trial by columnist rather than jury, this ridiculous belief that the president is not entitled to a private life -- it has all altered this scenario into the full-blown farce which we've all endured.

The lack of principles and ethics on the part of the media, and I do not modify the word with "news," is far more alarming than the actions of even the president. I shudder when I think of all the people who found the president guilty without any real evidence, who assumed from the media speculations that he committed a crime.

This is not the same as lying about an affair. There still is no conclusive evidence of a crime, yet public opinion is being colored by media aspersions. They have decided that there is a crime and they have decided on its nature. After all, they've spent good money on their investigations and they have to be right.

So many so-called reporters are offering opinion and gossip as facts. Using those cutesy phrases, "Sources say ... ," "Insiders report ... ," "Allegedly ... ,' and the numerous other phrases they choose, give the impression that what follows is true.

Man-on-the-street interviews supposedly representing majority opinions or incontrovertible data are slanted to the particular medium's forum. Gullible people swallow this garbage and act accordingly.

If ever the analogy of "Physician, heal thyself," were appropriate, the media need to paste it on their mirrors.

William R. Strater

archive