LETTER: Clinton coverage vs. Bush coverage

Dear Editor,

Thank you, Statesman! After reading your editorial on Jan. 22 (“Media did disservice to Bush”), I now know that I have a pretty serious memory problem. It appears I am remembering things that did not happen. I could swear, when I was in third grade and my class watched the inauguration of President George H. W. Bush, there was a little ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base similar to Clinton’s for outgoing President Ronald Reagan. Not only do I remember that, but I remember the networks covering it. I can still see the first dog climbing the steps of Air Force One. I now know this never happened, since the Statesman editorial writers have told me that no other president has done such a thing. I seem to remember CBS’ Dan Rather saying this, but then taking it back a few minutes later upon recollection of Reagan, among others … but then, this is my bad memory again. The editorial also noted that the media did not pay any attention to the inaugural luncheon. While I remember not seeing the entire luncheon, I thought I saw some of it (not on KTVX, though, they ran a muscle toner infomercial). It was in the U.S. Capital building, the inaugural photos were presented, President Bush spoke … All in my head. So, I will seek help concerning my mental health soon. Whether I go with my version of events, or the “real” version, Clinton was covered somewhat extensively as he left Washington. Was this a disservice? Maybe, but the media aren’t out to serve the president. The television networks want ratings, and they will show what they think will give them the best ratings. I would assume that covering former President Clinton as he gave “one last” speech would pick up better ratings than covering the new president as he stumbled through line after pause after line of teleprompted speech. Clinton just happens to have a good TV personality, and he is a good speaker. As for Bush’s speeches – what channel was that muscle toner on again?

Solon M. Boomer-Jenks