Of the media CEO's you mentioned, I believe only one is somewhat conservative, and that's Roger Ailes. From all that I've seen and heard Sumner Redstone, Jeff Zucker, Bob Iger and the rest of the Media CEOs are flaming Bush-bashing liberals. I don't think the attacks on Clinton were nearly as visceral and long-lived as the constant drumbeat we have seen and heard in the media since day-one of W's presidency. Except for a brief respite for the President right after 9/11 it has not let up for a minute. W/ Clinton it was very brief--relatively speaking--and not nearly as mean-spirited as what the media/dems/libs have done to President Bush.
You mean travelgate and whitewater and Monica and alleged affairs and Foster and his brother Roger and...
Go back and look. Most, if not all of it is on google.
Bush is a different target. Go back to early 2002. He had record ratings and the media gave him a free ride. IF he had not lied about WMD and reasons to go into IRAQ, and that had not caused the stir that it did the media would have had a different approach to Bush.
Then look at the economy. IF Bush had not gone into IRAQ with dubious reasoning, he would not have dumped over $1T into IRAQ and could have focused on different issues like the economy.
Bush has been his worst enemy with the press. Karl Rove was a good campaign manager but should not have been a White House adviser. The DECIDER, not a very good decider.
What I am saying is, the press is REACTIVE. They did not fabricate anything on Bush, much like they did not fabricate anything on Clinton [with the possible exception of the Foster conspiracy]. Everything the press has said and done to Bush has been based on decisions that Bush made.
Decisions to lie to everyone about Iraq invasion motives made him a target of epic proportions. And when it turned out he had no plan other than "going in", it exacerbated the problem. If Clinton had made the same "error of judgment" and the media DIDN'T give him 31 Flavors of Shit you would be apoplectic.