<...To set the record straight, for his part in the Silverado scam, Neil Bush got a slap on the wrist (the most lenient possible penalty) from federal regulators, and none of the kind of media attention focused on the innocent President Clinton, for a real estate deal in which the Clintons lost money.

Madison Guaranty was a $70 million failure. Silverado S&L went down to the tune of a $1 billion, maybe more. Considerations of scale alone would dictate that the latter would warrant far more media attention than the former, perhaps 10x as much, but oddly, the reverse was the case.



As far as press coverage was concerned, the simplest answer to your question might be that Clinton was President of the United States when his shit hit the fan, whereas Neil Bush at the time he got in trouble wasn't even "brother of the Governor of Texas" yet. This might account for at least some of the discrepancy in media coverage. Nobody in the country in general gave a rat's rump about Neil Bush, and he was just one of many from all sides of the political spectrum caught in the S&L mess.

So, the disparity in media coverage does not reflect the media's opinion of the guilt of either Clinton or Neil Bush, it simply reflects the star power of the respective "suspects" when they were being accused.

And of course there is still that uncomfortable fact that only 6 percent of the media call themselves conservatives.

Have you actually read "Bias" yet? Get it from a library if you don't want to see your money in Goldberg's pocket.