European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - March 1, 1992, Darmstadt, Hesse Sidelight scanning Bush a store Stop leaves food for thought by Howard Kurtz the Washington Post the Story of George Bush and the incredible supermarket scanner has become the Media Yam that die. First the new York times gave frontage prominence to Bush a alleged amazement at seeing a quart of milk a Light bulb and a bag of Candy rung up at an Ordinary checkout stand spawning a tidal wave of satiric columns and late night comedy routines about an out of touch president. Then came a round of debunking stories disclosing that times reporter Andrew Rosenthal never saw the incident but wrote the Story from two paragraphs in a Pool report. The author of the Pool report Gregg Mcdonald of the Houston chronicle did no to even mention the incident in his own Story. The times returned fire saying it had reviewed a network videotape of the great scanner scandal and that Bush a was clearly impressed by the Garden variety Gadget. Not so says Newsweek which screened the tape and declared that a Bush acts curious and polite but hardly it was a fresh demonstration of How a single hazy anecdote a Jimmy Carters a killer Rabbit comes to mind a can suddenly become larger than life when it seems to match the Public perception of a prominent figure. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called the Story a totally Media manufactured a saying Bush had actually been impressed by More advanced scanner technology. Says Mcdonald a in Hindsight i probably should be done a better Job of saying How new some of this stuff time magazines Michael Duffy another Pool member called the incident a completely insignificant As a news event. It was prosaic polite talk and Bush is expert at that. If anything he was Philip Taubman the times Deputy Washington editor says that a we stand by the original Story As the piece last week makes he Calls Rosenthals Reliance on the Pool report a a routine for White House coverage. The incident has spurred talk that the White House May be trying to keep Pool reporters out of earshot during Campaign events. In new Hampshire Rosenthal says a Bush Advance Man told him a you can explain to your colleagues Why they re going to be kept 50 Yards away from the president from now Bush Campaign spokeswoman Victoria Clarke dismisses the remark As a a joke a saying a we think the president is Good at mixing with people and wed like the reporters As up close and personal As presidential candidates love to quote news reports in their television ads because it lends an air of authority. But Arkansas gov. Bill Clinton got into a tangle with can Over a commercial on the Gennifer Flowers Saga. Frank Greer Clinton a Media adviser says the and was one of several sent to new Hampshire and Boston stations but was never supposed to run. He says Manchester a amur to aired the commercial twice by mistake and that it was abruptly pulled. A we consciously decided not to run that add Greer says. A we did no to authorize it. A Low level employee put it on 11 of clock at the commercial was part of a Clinton counterattack against Flowers the nightclub Singer who says she had a 12-year affair with the governor and taped some of their phone conversations. A the presidents Republican operatives were involved in promoting the untrue Gennifer Flowers Story to destroy Bill Clinton a a narrator says in the and. The statement is attributed to can. A where that came from was Gennifer Flowers live press conference which was carried by can a Greer says. Asked whether the and unfairly suggests that can reported the charge Greer says a it suggests to me it was on As in no a Brooks Jackson noted in a report on the controversy even Flowers did not claim any Contact with Bush a operatives a saying Only that she had gotten a Call from a a local the Clinton and also cited can in charging that the Flowers tapes were doctored. A we had a tape expert who said the tapes May have been doctored a Jackson says. A they removed All the qualifiers. They misquoted 1 Greer Calls the criticism a an unfair cheap shot Over something that really is not that Rush to interpret history amid Juk debate if Andy Rooney you wonder How any history gets written. Facts Are so elusive. Even on the Day an event takes place there is disagreement about what happened and by the time a week or a year passes Only a few people know the truth firsthand and no one believes them. Ultimately nothing is certain. A few years after the fact almost anyone can cast doubt on an event. There is an organization in los Angeles called the Institute for historical review which is seriously pressing the idea that the holocaust never happened and that it is largely an invention of jews. I suppose that in 500 years some Histo Rian will review newspaper clippings of their meetings and report that a at the time Many credible organizations presented evidence that jews were not mistreated in nazi concentration and forever after there will be doubt about it. When everyone who saw the nazi concentration Camps with their own eyes As i did Are dead and gone who can say for sure did John Wilkes Booth really shoot president Lincoln an imaginative writer and a Good director could put together a movie that would convince a lot of americans that Lincoln was shot with a Bow and Arrow from the stage of Fords theater by a Man having an affair with the presidents wife. The director might use Black and White film shot in flickering Light to suggest it was shot in 1865, of a wound in Lincoln a head that could Only have been caused by an Arrow. What Young movie goer would know that motion pictures weren to invented until 1872? the sad fact is if you Tell a Story often enough no matter How wildly untrue it is the Story takes on a life of its own and a certain number of people will believe it. Its Why a criminal caught with the evidence of his guilt can go into court for trial a year after his crime and have a jury believe him when he denies everything. People whose information about the assassination of John f. Kennedy is limited to what they Learned form watching Oliver stones movie Juk Are certain there was a conspiracy and certain that the president was shot by More than one person. They saw the film to prove it. At least they think they saw the film that proved it. Some of them a most of the think that they were shown actual photographs of Kennedy a body in the morgue with closeups of his damaged brain. They had no idea How much of the movie was faked. There Are a lot of writers out there making Money with their theories about the Kennedy assassination. Because there Are unfilled holes in the Lee Harvey Oswald Story opportunists have rushed to fill the void with misinformation. Some americans enjoy the idea that their government is evil so they like to believe there was a conspiracy by people in various government agencies to murder Kennedy. Others prefer the mafia theory. Does no to it strike any of them As strange that none of the vast number of conspirators anonymously implicated by these revisionist historians writings about the Juk assassination has Ever spoken out of All the Cia Fri mafia cuban haitian and personal enemies that Are accused of having conspired to murder Kennedy one among them have sold his Story or written a Book none has. Any information about the tragic event should be released. There a no reason to withold any of the information on which the Warren report was made. Someone said the Kennedy family originally requested the opening of the files be delayed to save them further grief but that family must be inured to grief by now. There Are unanswered questions. I reluctantly concede that if stones movie or the books being written Force the Early opening of material that was to have been sealed until the year 202 a they will have served a purpose. Tribune Modia services March 1,1992 sunday a Page 7
