So the media loves to point out the fact that the Bush kids are bad apples.

I can't say I disagree with them.

They drink underage, the party a lot, and they break the law.

But I can't say that I didn't do all of those as well.

When Clinton was President, there was an unwritten rule in the media to not cover Chelsea.

But of course, they did. I recall reading about her smoking at a bar. Legal? Yes. Appropriate? No.

Did it warrant a story? I don't think so.

When President's kids break the law, it is news.

My question: Should it be?

Mike

I think the media like Barbara and Jenna cause they think they're hot.

democrats by and large control the media, thats why i am suprised the sex scandal got as much air as it did.

SD- Never be suprised when the media covers sex. The cliche "sex sells" exists for a reason.

And sex is part of why the media covers the Bush girls so often. I know otseng was joking but there is an element to truth to the attractiveness of the Bush daughters being a reason they are covered.

Chelsea was boring. She was plain in looks and her activities were not interesting. It's easy to sell the sex, drugs & rock & roll story, just ask VH1 and MTV and their various similar channels.