Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Stations playing Bush campaign ads for free during news?

By brettd in Media
Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 04:12:31 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

A few nights ago, I was watching the local news on an Hearst-Argyle owned ABC news affiliate, WCVB. They launched into a story about Bush's reelection campaign, and how some of that huge pile of money was being put to action for a new commercial. Then to my surprise they ran it in entirety, full screen, with no voiceover commentary. Our President, with $190M in campaign funds, was getting what seemed suspiciously like a freebie.


I'm a Democrat, and I'm furious over the Bush ads; yes, about the blatant use of 9/11 imagery, but this story is about neither the party I support nor the recent fiasco. Right smack in the middle of a news program was a 30 second advertisement, being run as "news" with a few seconds introduction and then a few seconds commentary afterwards. I'm fairly certain I don't remember this happening in the '96 elections, as I was a brand new, card-carrying voter and paid close attention. Since when did a campaign commercial (regardless of which party the commercial is for) become news? I'd chalk it up as a fluke, except another local station(which has a political alignment only slightly less obvious than FOX news) did exactly the same thing a few days later, but compressed the ad and had a few words of commentary over it. As many people have commented during the editorial phase of this story, news stories about political ads(usually the strategy they take, and a brief "analysis" of that strategy) are nothing new, but it is a new trend to see ads played with barely an introduction.

Spot the difference here: "The Bush/Cheney Campaign has raised over $190 million dollars and has started to put that money to work in new advertisements, the first featuring first lady Laura Bush. [cut to the commercial, play it start to finish].

Versus: "The Bush/Cheney Campaign has raised over $190 million dollars and has started to put that money to work in new advertisements."[cut to clip with L. Bush speaking] Voiceover: "The latest ad features first lady Laura Bush, vouching for the character of her husband"...[voiceover ends] "He's a swell dude!" [cut back to desk anchor] "The ad is being run in southern states where blah blah blah blah." [next story].

One is playing the ad. The other is reporting on the ad as a news story. There's a drastic difference.

We've been through the Democratic primary, and far as I can remember, not once did the station in question play a political advertisement for a single democratic candidate during the news program. It played them all right, but during normal advertising blocks; not smack in the middle between "something blew up in Iraq" "someone shot in Boston", "Gays get married!" and "Martha's in trouble!"

Why is the timing so important? Well, for starters, one is paid for and the other was most likely not, although I can't decide which would be more infuriating, to be honest. Second, by running it full screen and with no voiceover commentary during the news program the station is nearly endorsing the commercial and implying it is newsworthy, factual content. Lastly, it nicely sidesteps commercial-skipping functions in VCRs and PVRs.

For the record, neither story had any commentary mentioning the whole 9/11-imagery fiasco(which became a news item in itself), and one was the Laura Bush commercial; the imagery fiasco was not why they were playing the ads. WCVB and ABC have both since covered said fiasco, either without running the ad at all, or featuring stills or very brief clips. It would seem perfectly possibly to report on a political commercial, without playing it in entirety.

Has your local station done this, for what candidates, and what network is it part of?(WCVB is part of Hearst-Argyle, for example). Keeping in mind the distinctions between running the ad as advertising, playing it during the news, and running a news story about an advertisement, is this a new phenomenon? Is it within the standards of journalistic integrity? Discuss!

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Has your local news station done a story on a candidate's commercial?
o No 41%
o Yes, but the ad wasn't shown 7%
o Yes, and part of the ad was shown 28%
o Yes, and all of the ad was shown 23%

Votes: 39
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by brettd


Display: Sort:
Stations playing Bush campaign ads for free during news? | 152 comments (138 topical, 14 editorial, 3 hidden)
your moral (2.20 / 5) (#1)
by WetherMan on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 02:18:59 PM EST

outrage amuses me.  you already know the answer to this question, and it doesn't need an article on the front page for it to be answered by k5.
---
fluorescent lights make me look like old hot dogs
So? (2.00 / 6) (#2)
by Easyas123 on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 02:49:43 PM EST

Most of the stuff you have mentioned are statements of opinion, not fact. The democratic party is run by biig boys and girls, if there is a equal time violation happening, I am sure they will get right on it.

***********************
As the wise men fortold.

The earliest I can remember is Willie Horton (none / 3) (#6)
by big fat idiot on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 04:46:03 PM EST

And that's just because before then I have no political awareness, I'm sure controversial campaign commercials and slogans were making the news even before then.

Perhaps we should phrase the question another way: was there any time in which campaign ads of one form or another were not news?

there is a difference (none / 2) (#11)
by brettd on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 05:34:17 PM EST

And that's just because before then I have no political awareness, I'm sure controversial campaign commercials and slogans were making the news even before then.

There is a stark difference between playing an ad, and reporting on it as news.

[ Parent ]

Willie Horton made national headlines (none / 3) (#18)
by big fat idiot on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 08:21:05 PM EST

See Bush's most valuable player in the Nov '88 edition of Time magazine or The one that got away in the June '88 edition of the same. Then there is The Week column in the Nov '88 edition of the National Review and The campaign goes on a furlough in the Oct '88 edition of US News & World Report.

And those are just some of the national news magazine articles in the first ten hits on EBSCO about the Willie Horton ad. If I were to search for daily papers as well, the number of articles would increase exponentially.

Reporting on campaign ads has been part of the US political process for as long as I can remember and I'd be willing to wager that the practice predates my political awareness by at least half of a century, if not longer.

[ Parent ]

They have always been news. (2.25 / 4) (#8)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 04:48:56 PM EST

"It's morning again in America" was a famous Reagan ad. Or, if you remember Dukakis, the Willie Horton / revolving prison door advertisement made huge headlines and no doubt helped to Bush 41.

In other words: every campaign statement is news. You're a dangerous fool to think otherwise.

-Soc
I drank what?


That would be since... (2.80 / 5) (#12)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 05:46:12 PM EST

...1964.

Ask me another question. I'm real smart.

Adequacy.org

A regretful minus one. (1.14 / 7) (#14)
by V on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:18 PM EST

While I think the topic is worth discussin given the current climate in America's (and therefore the world's) politics, I feel this article does not invite the reader to discuss this important topic.

Maybe you could add a "Discuss" towards the end?

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

any suggestions? (none / 1) (#28)
by brettd on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:55:40 PM EST

Open to suggestions, as it was my intention to foster discussion.  Instead, I seem to have attracted all the "I hate politics" people(that's why it is classified in the "politics" section, people) and republican trolls who didn't get beyond the first sentence :-)

I don't think "discuss" is necessary, but some ending questions might be good.  I threw in the poll to see who else had noticed the same phenomenon.

[ Parent ]

More campaign ad news (3.00 / 8) (#15)
by sien on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 07:02:21 PM EST

Stolen from metafilter, CNN is running an article about how the Republican National Congress is going around telling media outlets that ads from moveon.org are illegally financed.

It will be interesting to see if storie about this issue include running the full ad.

moveon.org is illegally funded (none / 3) (#75)
by duffbeer703 on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 11:58:24 PM EST

Do you think that a Hungarian/Englishman should be funding American presidential campaigns? Oh.. I forgot.. anything is ok to unseat Bush!

I would like to read your reaction to an organization funded by Crown Prince Abdulluh of Saudi Arabia running anti-Kerry ads.

Also notice that McCain's maw has been shut for this election.

The press that the Bush administration has received has been 100% negative regarding those ads. Running the ad on the news is more indictment than endorsement.

[ Parent ]

Soros is a US Citizen (none / 2) (#77)
by isaac_akira on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 06:36:42 AM EST

George Soros, the "Hungarian/Englishman" you speak of, is a naturalized US Citizen. He moved to the US in 1956. He certainly has the right to say what he wants about Bush.

[ Parent ]
True but (1.00 / 5) (#82)
by armonica on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:15 AM EST

Yea he is a naturalized citizen and he does have a right to say what he wants about Bush AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT DEFAMATORY. He also has to obey the same fanancing laws that all of us do. Just because he is a billionaire doesn't mean he is above the law. Moveon.org has intentionally published stuff they know damn well is a lie. Funny how they don't want to "move on" themselves. I see them doing just what they accused the Republican's of doing with Clinton, if not worse.

Soros is about as anti-american as they come. He funds all kinds of anti-american activities including efforts to defeat the 2nd ammendment. I understand the Nazi's had him in a concentration camp in WW II. Maybe that is why he is so crazy when it comes to Government. Seems that he would realize what German gun control did in Germany and how it could have saved so many people by not having it. Goes to show that even billionaire can be stupid too.

[ Parent ]

Is Anti-American a bad thing then? (none / 1) (#87)
by gabban on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 10:44:07 AM EST

From The Open Society Institutes US Programs Mission Statement:
"An open society is one that protects fundamental human rights, guarantees impartial justice, provides opportunities for people to make the most of their talents, and makes public decisions through a democratic process that is open to full participation and constant reexamination." ... "Although the U.S. aspires to the ideal of an open society, in many respects we fall short and in others we are losing ground. An open society requires a public sphere shielded from the inequalities of the marketplace, but in the U.S., the dominant values have become those of market fundamentalism, which rejects a role for government and poses a threat to political equality, public services, racial justice, and the social safety net. An open society requires an unbiased system of justice that stands apart from political pressures and social inequality, but in the U.S., the pressures of money, bias, and politics undermine the independence of the courts and the fairness of the criminal justice system."

Ok, so he's against the principle of one dollar = one vote, is that what bugs you, or is there more? I read a bit on what he was trying to accomplish with the OSI after some swedish Psycho Bitch from Hell (actually Hassela or RNS) pegged him as Satan for supporting the harm reduction approach in the EU, and my impression was that the OSI did some very commendable work. Did I miss something? Do you own an oil company?

[ Parent ]
Harm reduction approach? (none / 0) (#114)
by cyberdruid on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 04:06:56 AM EST

What is?

[ Parent ]
Depends on who you ask... (none / 0) (#121)
by gabban on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 04:39:57 PM EST

i) An attempt to minimize the damages drugs can do to our society, or ii) feeble pinko commie conspiracy to get drugs legalized.

[ Parent ]
lies? (none / 1) (#90)
by shinshin on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 11:25:52 AM EST

Moveon.org has intentionally published stuff they know damn well is a lie.

Like what, specifically? The things they say may be inflammatory, but from what I've seen, they've never actually lied.

Contrast this to actual Republican representatives who say things like "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden", and it is laughable to say that Moveon.org is the side that plays dirty politics.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Definition of defamatory (none / 1) (#98)
by pdrap on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 02:37:07 PM EST

If he hasn't been chaged, sued, or sit in front of a judge, then practically speaking, Soros can say what he wants. If Bush is so upset that Soros is saying mean things about him, then he should stop being a pussy and see a lawyer.


[ Parent ]
oh good god.... (none / 0) (#129)
by Ashur on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 06:15:20 AM EST

do you have to turn this into a gun-ownership issue? you really think Germany would have turned out ANY better if the general populace had better access to firearms?? Some (sane) people might comment that the entire war was really a direct result of people being entirely too free with their goddamn guns. Like say shooting people, which i have under good authority is one of the few purposes guns can serve. People should be allowed to, under the right circumstances, own guns. But I don't think it can conceivably be a fundamental right, unless you want to include random carnage as one too. Do you really believe firearms could really help if the big ol' govt turns against you? Remember Waco? Im pretty sure they stuck to their guns. ALso they were fucking nuts.

[ Parent ]
Au Contraire (none / 2) (#108)
by bjlhct on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 06:54:03 PM EST

Native-born americans are stupid. Do you think that they should be involved in a presidential campaign? Oh...I forgot....anything to defeat Kerry!

I'd like to see your reaction to an organization funded by wealthy but stupid career criminals running anti-Bush ads.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

Why shouldn't he - he's right. (none / 2) (#103)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 04:31:12 PM EST

moveon.org violates the very campaign finance reforms the democrates were touting two years ago.

Funny how the democrats shut up about campaign finance reform once they realized that the Republicans were still able to collect more money than they could.

Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
[ Parent ]

+1 FP (2.00 / 6) (#16)
by duncan bayne on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 07:37:15 PM EST

Worthy of discussion - although private news organisations should be free to play any legal material (i.e. material produced without comitting a crime), whenever they like.

FWIW, I consider most TV 'news' to be MLP nowadays. This has just confirmed my suspicions :-)

TV stations aren't really private. (none / 2) (#24)
by waxmop on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:37:09 PM EST

See, the FCC is a public government agency entrusted with control of the US broadcast spectrum. They're supposed to manage them for the public interest. That's their charter. So the FCC argues that the best way to serve the people is to grant broadcast rights to these corporations.

Sure, it's all bullshit, and networks don't really care about social utility, but they have to at least pretend like they do.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

The FCC (2.75 / 4) (#30)
by BCoates on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 11:19:08 PM EST

Withdrawing a licence due to political content in a news show probably wouldn't play well over at the Supreme Court.

[ Parent ]
Fume and fuss all you want (1.90 / 11) (#17)
by cestmoi on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 07:48:27 PM EST

I'm a democrat, and I'm furious over the Bush ads. Yes, about the blatant use of 9/11 imagery...

You're going to have to do better than that to stir people up. Bush is doing something called "running on his record." I'm not sure whom I going to vote for next November but I'm not going to hold the ads against Bush. After 9/11, I vividly recall dreading the possibility of turning on the news and seeing images of an American city vaporized. The fact that Seattle hasn't gone up in smoke since 9/11 is something the administration can reasonably claim credit for. Lord knows, it's not due to Bin Laden's warm feelings for the American public.

There are times that we need leaders who can carefully consider a variety of viewpoints and there are times where a simple visceral response is appropriate. Just as Churchill was right for England during WWII, Bush was the right man for 9/11. Bush should recall however, that Churchill was voted out immediately after WWII.

The manufactured outrage over the ads just plays as sour grapes on the Democrat's side. If that's the best they can do, Bush will have an easy victory.

end of the war (2.75 / 4) (#21)
by sal5ero on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 09:39:15 PM EST

Bush should recall however, that Churchill was voted out immediately after WWII.

how do we tell when we have reached the end of the "war on terror"? perhaps there is no realistic goal condition in a "war on terror" (nice for bush)?



[ Parent ]
Sure there is (none / 2) (#37)
by BCoates on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 02:50:09 AM EST

Down: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (partial)

To go: N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Yemen.

[ Parent ]

So basically never. (2.85 / 7) (#45)
by kmcrober on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 01:18:25 PM EST

Because by the time the Bush camp "won" in that many countries, we'd be a third-rate theocracy with a third-world economy ourselves.

[ Parent ]
ok, so the governments are subdued... (none / 3) (#55)
by sal5ero on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 06:14:45 PM EST

what about the terrorists? (you know, the ones doing the terrorist attacks)

[ Parent ]
I'm so grateful (2.90 / 10) (#26)
by Blarney on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:52:12 PM EST

Yes, I'm very happy that no former employees of Bush I's CIA have attacked the United States lately. But not grateful enough to elect his vicious moron of a son again.

I mean, the Bush II administration was paying off the Taliban as recently as May 2001, Saddam was made by the Reagan/Bush foreign policy boys as a foil for Iran, Osama used to work for the CIA and his siblings were evacuated from the US by the Federal government immediately after 9/11 while random Arab-Americans were hauled in for questioning on bullshit to make things look good. They tried to have a secret trial right where I live, right here in Ann Arbor, and deported the "defendant" for some 10-year old minor status violation (possibly manufactured) when it became obvious that the judge wasn't going to allow a secret trial based on secret evidence - meanwhile the Bin Ladens were safe and home, thanks to Bush and his Saudi pals (Bandar Bush? look HIM up).

Call me a conspiracy nut if you want, but I think you'd better take a real look into the historical careers of Saddam and Osama, and while you're at it Noriega, Qaddafi, Ortega, and basically everyone the US has needed to bomb for the last quarter century. Take a look at Reagan/Bush era politics, and Bush's leadership of the CIA, and how they relate to the mass production of enemies for the US to smack down later - and do you still feel grateful? The Bush family and friends are like firemen who set buildings on fire. They're like mothers who feed their children lye and arsenic, who shave their heads and pretend they've got cancer, just so they can get them attention and take pride in their "caregiving". And we are to be grateful for not being bombed lately?

I'd be even more grateful if this shit just stopped. And if the Democrats were smart enough to jump on this issue, on this whole sad sorry history of friendly warlords, to end this before there is more damage, the US probably has a better chance of lasting through our lifetimes. It is that serious to me. And I don't feel gratitude, no, I feel lied to.

Do you feel patriotic when you see the TV ad of Bush in front of the burning towers? It's quite appropriate. Because who props up the royalty who feeds the Wahabim who teach the terrorists? Who filled Afghanistan with guns, who gave the Afghan children textbooks about jihad and the evil infidels? Who is, even now, grooming a new succession of rulers for devastated countries, ready for us to make war upon in the future? Who made a Nazi thug the ruler of Mesopotamia, who funded him and armed him to dominate his neighbors? And who sent the US Army over there against that thug, for no reason other than that thug becoming disgruntled (for quite understandable reasons) and calling in a hit on Bush I? The man in front of the towers, he's the architect of the bombing, and he is a traitor to his own country. Vote for him and you vote for the destruction of the US.

[ Parent ]

You're right (none / 2) (#36)
by BCoates on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 02:46:01 AM EST

With that sort of uncompromising, farsighted foreign policy in place in the 80s, the Islamists would busy fighting the Soviet Union right now instead of worrying about the US!

[ Parent ]
Can you give a domino? (none / 3) (#39)
by Blarney on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:14:14 AM EST

Give me domino theory, I'm curious - let me know if any single one of the stupid friendly warlord adventures in Afghanistan or the Middle East was absolutely necessary, if having neglected to do it would have allowed the Soviet Union to continue menacing us to this day...

Or, if you'd prefer not to speculate on what-if's, can you point to one outstanding success where building up a friendly warlord defeated the Soviet Union? I really do want to know, I really do want an opposing point of view.... if you don't know, go ask a conservative friend who does, because I really do wonder why these time bombs were set for us. Maybe I'm not old enough to get it - please tell me.

[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 2) (#44)
by BCoates on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 11:36:18 AM EST

No single one of the stupid friendly warloard adventures in Afghanistan or the Middle East was absolutely necessary.

But the defeat of the USSR was eventually brought about, at least in part, by draining them economically. Doing things just to make the Soviets less secure (so they felt the need to build-up militarily), or just opposing them in things the US had no other interest, forcing them to spend money and influence they'd otherwise get to keep (Selling weapons to countries at a loss just to stop them from buying Russian ones, for example) helped that along.

I'm not going to argue that it was well-advised to prop up any leader we found that was anti-communist, dictator, warlord, or otherwise; I'm just suggesting that there's a more likely motivation than manufacturing crisises for their own sake, so that some future Republican can defuse them.

[ Parent ]

I was afraid back then (none / 2) (#52)
by Blarney on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:43 PM EST

I haven't forgotten the Russians, no, I was scared of nuclear death back in the 80s when I was a child and my teachers were fond of explaining how Reagan was the only man who could save us from it. But I think it's really interesting that the Russians never bombed the US, and that our "friends" have. True, it's only a few thousand people, not a nuclear death of hundreds of millions... maybe it was worth it, maybe it wasn't.

Still, I think it was a bad idea in the 80s to be propping these people up. But hey, let's forget the 80s. Where were the Russians in spring 2001 when Bush II was funding the Taliban (was this all for Unocal's pipeline like the liberals say)? What did the Russians have to do with our stupid Afghanistan operation and our propping up of this warlord Karzai while Taliban policies continue despite the whole rationale of the war being to end them? Why is Rumsfeld so eager to establish a "moderate Islamic state" in Iraq, a country which was in fact secular under Saddam (women could drive cars and work, people could buy alcohol, etc.) and was not ruled by the mullahs? Is this simply a different idea of religion in public life - let Iraq be officially Muslim, let the United States be officially Christian - or is it a deliberate plan to keep the same sorry sort of thing going on in Iraq as in the rest of the middle east?

Even if the Russians become a threat again, how will having a patchwork of right-wing religious totalitarian hellholes in the MidEast defeat them next time?

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#69)
by kcidx on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 12:59:40 PM EST

Where were the Russians in spring 2001 when Bush II was funding the Taliban (was this all for Unocal's pipeline like the liberals say)? What did the Russians have to do with our stupid Afghanistan operation and our propping up of this warlord Karzai while Taliban policies continue despite the whole rationale of the war being to end them?

The cover story I remember was that the Taliban made progress towards eliminating their countries opium production...so we um...gave them a bunch of money as a reward or something.

Admittedly a totally bullshit reason, but what else does the American public ever really get besides bullshit these days?

G.W. is scum. He's a liar and a crook. Here we have a president who uses 9/11 as a campaign ploy, yet refuses to testify in front of the panel investigating 9/11. He says he will only testify to the two leaders of the panel, and only for an hour (since revised to "more than an hour if absolutely necessary"), and only on the condition that he is not under oath.

It's a fucking joke...but a bad one, told by crooked me.

[ Parent ]

Afghan probably was (none / 0) (#58)
by godix on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 01:06:27 AM EST

Russias adventures in Afghan tied up and demoralized the Russian army about as much as Vietnam did for the US. I doubt anyone can draw a direct link and say Russia fell because of Afghan but spending large amounts of troops and money on some god forsaken shithole then losing had to contribute to it.

As for the middle east, like the anti-war people love claiming, it's all about the oil. During the cold war it was a simple straightforward attempt to hurt Russia by limiting their resources. Russia has their own oil so it's questionable how effective this really was.

Regardless of that, once the cold war was over the US should have removed those puppet dictators. Of course in the 12 years since the cold war ended the US has fought Panama, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and we probably would have fought Pakistan as well if they didn't kiss our asses so much after 9/11. I find it astounding that the people who bitch about American aid 20 years ago are the same people who bitch when America tries to clean up after themselves. Do you want these dictators in power or not?

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

Cleaning up? (none / 1) (#80)
by thejeff on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:17:00 AM EST

I find it astounding that the peop le who bitch about American aid 20 years ago are the same people who bitch when America tries to clean up after themselves. Do you want these dictators in power or not?

Yes, I do want them gone, but given the US government's track record, I don't trust them to do the job right. Dictators who become politically inconvienent are opposed, those who toe the line are not, pretty much regardless of how brutal and oppressive they are. Despite the rhetoric, we seem to prefer puppet regimes, who will do what they're told and keep their countries stable for investment, over democracies that might actually listen to their own people.

Maybe I'm too cynical about this?

[ Parent ]

Doing what their told (none / 1) (#84)
by godix on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 10:18:08 AM EST

As long doing what their told includes not brutally supressing their citizens I don't really have a problem with that. Dictatorships aren't evil because they're dictatorship, they're evil becuase they're oppresive. If there's a dictator that isn't oppresive then who really cares that he's in power?

Out of idle curiosity, if the US doesn't clean up after itself who exactly do you think will take out oppresive and brutal dictatorship? Half of Europe is too busy selling them weapons to remove them and there really aren't all that many other countries capable of doing it.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

Doing what they're told (none / 0) (#120)
by thejeff on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 03:33:02 PM EST

Involves foreign policy and American commercial interests. As long as they keep the oppression below the radar of the US media, that's not a concern.

How brutal does it have to be before you have a problem with? Genocide, mass graves, etc? Disappearances, death squads, torture of dissidents? Suppression of political rivals, free speech etc?

You're right though, there's probably no one else who can/will do it, especially if the US doesn't want them to. But if all we wind up doing is replacing one dictator with another a little more to our liking, I don't think it's worth it.

Not supporting evil bastards even when it's in our "national interest" to do so, would be a good sign that we were actually trying to help these countries, not just get them back in line.

[ Parent ]

Dude you are SO mixing things up! (2.83 / 6) (#86)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:59 AM EST

Let's get the record straight. Saddam was NOT the CIA's boy .... and saying it 50 billion times over doesn't make it any truer. Saddam was mostly the Soviets boy, although he had a large independent streak as well.... he did play the West (mostly France) off against the Soviets to his own advantage and was very skillfull in doing so. He recieved limited aid from the U.S. during the Iran/Iraq conflict because the best possible result for us was for that war to end in a stalemate.... which it did.

The money that you claim Bush II was giving the Taliban was actualy coming from a U.N. sponsored humanitarian program for Afghanistan. That program was administered by the U.N..... NOT the U.S.

The Taliban was never sponsored by the U.S. simply because it wasn't in existance during the Cold War. Nor did we sponsor Bin Laden himself (he was a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the scene).... we DID sponsor the Muhajadin, SOME of whom later became Taliban (and Al Queyda) and SOME of whom became the guys who were fighting the Taliban (i.e. Northern Alliance) and if you are unable to grasp the political realities of why that sort of thing can happen then I would suggest that the closest you've every come to studying history is watching reruns of MASH.

And yes you are correct, the Feds did hussle some of Bin Ladens relatives out of the U.S. after 9-11. Those relatives just happen (just like Bin Laden) to be members of the Saudi royal family... which also happens to have put a death sentance on Bin Ladens head.... but you're probably one of those morons who happen to think that everyone who is related by blood has to share the same views and be on the same side of a conflict.... again try reading history some time.

Now if you have a pathelogical hatred of Bush and everything conservative, that is your right... but don't goddam deficate all over the truth because of it.

[ Parent ]

Links? <NT> (none / 0) (#124)
by Innocent Bystander on Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 01:06:42 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Stay on topic, please. (2.00 / 4) (#27)
by brettd on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:52:40 PM EST

This is not about the 9/11 imagery. Please read beyond the first sentence...

[ Parent ]
If it's not important... (2.80 / 5) (#34)
by NaCh0 on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 01:52:38 AM EST

...then remove it from the story.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
In the same vein, (3.00 / 12) (#35)
by Kasreyn on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 02:03:54 AM EST

the fact that the Earth hasn't been struck by a rogue asteroid and had its biosphere sterilized is something the administration can reasonably claim credit for. Lord knows, it's not due to the rarity of asteroid impacts.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Are you safer now? (none / 2) (#67)
by cam on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 12:44:02 PM EST

The fact that Seattle hasn't gone up in smoke since 9/11 is something the administration can reasonably claim credit for.

I dont think so. The Sept 11th attacks were an abberation. Al Queda got lucky as noone was expecting anything like that. There normal mode was to blow themselves up against a wall, a truck or a ship. If you look at Sept 11th as a fluke, nothing has changed much. I still assume more risk by getting behind the wheel of a car and driving than I do from terrorism.

I am no safer now, I am also not less safe. My assumption of risk is no different to what it was before and I live in a high risk region of the world for terrorism (Nth Virginia). Government is irrelevant to whether I am safer or not before or after Sept 11th.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Yeah right (none / 3) (#78)
by theboz on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:03:52 AM EST

After 9/11, I vividly recall dreading the possibility of turning on the news and seeing images of an American city vaporized. The fact that Seattle hasn't gone up in smoke since 9/11 is something the administration can reasonably claim credit for. Lord knows, it's not due to Bin Laden's warm feelings for the American public.

Yeah, and Hitler wasn't such a bad guy because he only killed some of the Jews...

Seriously, that Bush son of a bitch allowed 9/11 to happen and ignored the threat that everyone in the government was aware of. This article lists some of the things that were known, which was pretty much everything from the sites to attack, the method of using airplanes as bombs, to who the hijackers were, and an approxamate timeframe for the attack to occur. The Bush administration are responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen, and he should be impeached for his negligence and covering it up, not elected because he tried to cover it up.

Hell, he flew the bin Laden's out of the country when nobody else could fly, and wouldn't allow them to be questioned at all. Bush is a god damned traitor.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

So how is that proof that Bush knew? (3.00 / 5) (#88)
by godix on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 10:44:28 AM EST

The article provides lots of already known information that the US Intelligence agencies knew a plane could be used in a suicide attack and knew an attack was coming. I saw no proof that George Bush knew that those specific four planes were going to be hijacked and flown into the WTC, Pentagon, and a farm in middle of no where. Knowing an attack is being planned and knowing what exactly the attack is are two totally different things, just ask the French who manned the Maginot Line. There's no question the US government, especially the intelligence agencies, failed on 9/11 but if you're going to claim Bush knew about it beforehand and allowed it to happen I demand to see the proof that Bush personally said anything along the lines of 'Oh fuck it, let them destroy WTC'.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]
Let's look at what was known (none / 0) (#117)
by theboz on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 01:28:55 PM EST

The government (including the Bush administration, CIA, FBI, etc) knew the following:
  • Al Qaeda wanted to use planes as weapons by crashing them into stuff, since they knew about Operation Bojinka from the Clinton administration.
  • The WTC was attacked once, and it was known that it was a target for a future attack.
  • Other government buildings such as the White House and Pentagon were known targets.
  • In the months leading up to 9/11, the Bush administration had been warned that terrorists were up to something and that an attack was imminent.
If they had bothered to get on TV and say, "Terrorists are up to something, here are what they might be doing" then that would have possibly prevented the attacks from being successful. I imagine that the only reason the planes were crashed into the buildings is because nobody expected it to be a suicide hijacking. If the government had made it's knowledge public in the preceeding months, then most likely the attack would have been minimized.

Then there's the fact that the Bush administration ignored terrorism altogether, and chose to deal with economic terrorist groups like Haliburton and Enron. The Clinton administration handed them their plan on a silver platter, which the Bush administration ignored until after 9/11, when they implemented parts of it. If Bush had simply maintained the level that Clinton had set, then the attacks might have been prevented.

I don't think that Bush or his top people knew the exact day that it was going to happen, but they did know it was imminent, and what was going to happen. In fact, 9/11 was much smaller than Operation Bojinka was planned to be, which was uncovered during the Clinton administration.

We'll never have proof of Bush being told on September 10th, 2001 of any attacks, and he may not have been told. That doesn't excuse that his inaction and lack of priorities allowed the attacks to occur. If he didn't expect the attacks, then that is a sign that he is a horrible leader and doesn't pay attention to those working for him. if he did expect the attacks but did nothing, then he is a horrible leader who can't be proactive in doing his job, even when he knows what to do. I don't see anything Bush can brag about with 9/11, but instead all he can do is use it to keep people afraid, which is the only way he can remain in power.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

You're slipping off the deep end, boz. (none / 1) (#102)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 04:28:16 PM EST

Not to mention overlooking the fact that most of those "intelligence failures" occurred while Clinton was in the white house.

Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
[ Parent ]
Did they? (none / 0) (#118)
by theboz on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 01:33:09 PM EST

From what I've read, the Clinton Administration was well aware of the threat of terrorists. They even tried to get Bush's people to pay attention to the plans they had and of the terrorist intelligence they had gathered. I wrote about some of this previously so I won't rehash it here. The Clinton administration, while not perfect, did a lot better job than Bush when it came to fighting terrorism. The intelligence was all there for 9/11, but nobody listened to it. I guess they were too busy having Enron orgies and making plans for Iraq.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

You're so damn right. (none / 1) (#130)
by Ashur on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 06:18:50 AM EST

Bush did prevent Seattle from spontaneously vaporising! Also I noticed my car didn't turn into a particularly angry bee and start stinging me in my bad eye this morning! GOD PRAISE BUSH HE PROTECTS US ALL

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing you aren't old enough (2.50 / 4) (#23)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:33:47 PM EST

to remember the 2000 election. Or the 96 election. Or the 92 election. I'm pretty sure it happened a lot during the 88 election, too, but I could be wrong.

To the point - if it wasn't for news outlets breathlessly reporting about all the new campaign ads, I'd never see or hear the new campaign ads because I don't watch much TV.

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


easy, tiger... (none / 1) (#43)
by naught on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 11:15:33 AM EST

author actually says he was a newly minted voter in '96.  however, you are quite correct: i don't live in the land of political battle, so i don't get to see the advertisements.

regardless of what we thing the news media's job should be, fair and unbaised reporting isn't something we can reasonably expect -- to think that a journalist should objectively report 'just the facts' is a little naive.

--
"extension of knowledge is the root of all virtue" -- confucius.
[ Parent ]

added that bit because of the comment (none / 0) (#57)
by brettd on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 10:54:25 PM EST

author actually says he was a newly minted voter in '96.  

In defense of the original comment, I actually added that bit in specifically because of that very comment, and because others claimed I was naive, not paying attention, etc.

The story actually contains probably over a dozen edits based on commentary during the editorial period. That's what it's for, right? :-)

[ Parent ]

I personally don't mind (2.83 / 6) (#29)
by Blarney on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 10:55:43 PM EST

The ads are alright with me, otherwise I might well not notice them, and at least there's some element of fairness in the free playing of this advertising.

I didn't hear any Democrats complaining when the usually-insufferable O'Reilly played the MoveOn ad that CBS wouldn't accept. In fact, I think that's the only decent thing O'Reilly ever did for "fairness" and "balance" - I don't want the ability for a newsman to do such things to be taken away. Because it's easy to rerun someone else's ad, it'll probably all even out, and the newspeople can congratulate themselves as being fair and objective - they're no such thing, of course, but this practice of regurgitating advertisements at least lets them pretend to be. And being as we can't really expect the corporate owners of the media to do any better, it's the best we're going to get.



this is off topic, but (2.90 / 11) (#38)
by martingale on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:13:28 AM EST

What I would like to see is a group of video editing geeks start to act like a k5 audience with political ads.

Imagine for a second if a campaign ad was like a k5 story. You could comment on it, quote from it, voice over parts of it, link to extra information, troll it, etc.

We are close to the point where such a thing is now practical. Crude video editing software is cheap, P2P networks are plentiful, otherwise idle potential commentators are available.

I would love to see political ads reedited by anonymous internauts in every way imaginable, redistributed like mp3s, and generally disseminated indiscriminately while mutating at every other hop. I think it would do wonders for the average person's critical thinking and marvellously promote distrust of the official channels, which our current world strongly needs.

husi image sigs. (none / 0) (#51)
by waxmop on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:23:52 PM EST

People are doing some really creative things over there with images.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]
-1: Liberal (1.16 / 25) (#40)
by I Hate Jesus on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 07:18:24 AM EST

We wouldn't be hearing your liberal whines if they had played a Dean or Kerry ad start to finish.

Do you hate Jesus too?
yea, instead (2.40 / 5) (#41)
by enry on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 09:09:35 AM EST

We'd be hearing conservative whines. Ed Gillespie, two faced liar, would be on all the talk shows demanding that stations stop talking about Kerry. Rush Limbaugh would be shouting at the top of his lungs. Bill O'Reilly would be starting a 'boycott', and I don't even want to think of what Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter would be saying about it, but it wouldn't be pretty (or true).

[ Parent ]
Not everyone who hates Bush is liberal (none / 0) (#89)
by tassach on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 11:21:36 AM EST

To answer your question, yes, I would be annoyed if any candidate got preferential treatment in the news.

I dislike Kerry. However, I loathe Bush more than words can describe. Shrub is a lazy, lying, corrupt, warmongering fool. I would vote for anyone who stands a halfway decent chance of getting his ass out of the oval office. The only candidates in recent memory who had anything resembling personal integrity were John McCain and Wesley Clark. Unfortunately, neither of them is on the ballot; so there's only one serious not-Bush choice.

Voting AGAINST Bush is more important than voting FOR Kerry.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Don't you yanks ever vote for a *program* ? (2.71 / 7) (#42)
by bob6 on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 10:28:25 AM EST

I obviously mean a political program.

Cheers.
in short, no (3.00 / 6) (#54)
by Battle Troll on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 05:44:39 PM EST

This is primarily because:
  • lower-house legislators are re-elected so often that they have to permanently campaign; therefore, they offer specifics, not generalities, to their constituents
  • the President is the head of the executive branch but does not sit in the legislature, so his program of legislation is of necessity much vaguer than a Prime Minister's would be

    It's refreshing to be reminded that other countries are essentially as ignorant of the USA as the Americans are of them.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

  • Legislative power (none / 1) (#59)
    by bob6 on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 03:46:00 AM EST

    Who in the US initiates and proposes fresh new laws? Maybe I misundestood, but it seems that's not the President or anyone from the executive branch.
    It's refreshing to be reminded that other countries are essentially as ignorant of the USA as the Americans are of them.
    Touché. Furthermore constitutions are quite boring to learn.

    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    The American Legistlative Process (none / 2) (#63)
    by HiFi78 on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 09:37:51 AM EST

    Here's the unquestionable authority on how American laws are implemented:

    I'm Just A Bill

    [ Parent ]
    Also (none / 2) (#64)
    by KilljoyAZ on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 10:12:32 AM EST

    A handy guide to amending the Constitution.

    ===
    Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
    [ Parent ]
    re: President's "program of legislation" (none / 3) (#66)
    by Battle Troll on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 10:47:16 AM EST

    I'm sorry, I should have been clearer:
    While the president obviously has a tremendous amount of authority, his legislative power is limited. The president can recommend legislation, but only Congress can write it. The presidential veto is a very powerful tool, but it's not a line-item veto, and can be overridden with a two-thirds majority vote.
    From here.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    "only Congress can write it" (none / 1) (#68)
    by bob6 on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 12:49:55 PM EST

    That's tough. Thanks.

    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    It's worse than that... (none / 3) (#73)
    by Skywise on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 08:30:49 PM EST

    Once the legislation gets written it turns into a bill (Everybody in the US sing:  "I'm just a Bill... Just a lonely old Bill... and I'm sittin' here on capitol hill")

    At the bill stage, the legislation can be argued and debated.  While the bill is being debated it can be amended so the wording can be clarified and such.  Oftentimes, this gets used to attach congressmen's pet projects or to make the bill so unattractive so as not to be passed.

    The President does have some power at this stage to  unify voting in one direction or another by pulling strings and making deals.  But it's all politically based.  So if you run out of political karma, congress won't listen to you.

    It's a wonder any legislation ever gets passed.

    [ Parent ]

    Because (2.71 / 7) (#46)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:49 PM EST

    Bush is essentially an ad for the news.

    His policies aren't necessarily the best ones but they sure do make for some interesting and exciting news that people will want to know more about.

    Think about it.  Bombing the shit out of two countries.  Pushing for anti-gay constitutional amendments.  Blanant favoritism.  Ruining the economy.  (You have a lot of time to watch tv when you don't have a job.)

    Bush is the president we love to hate and the new loves the increased viewership.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

    Ok, listen to me very carefully... (2.50 / 6) (#49)
    by Skywise on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:06:20 PM EST

    The Ad... WAS the news.

    In the primaries, no ads were considered controversial enough to become news themselves.  It was a 15 second spot and the scene in question ran about 3 seconds so by the time you give a few seconds before and after to show CONTEXT, you've pretty much shown the whole ad.

    If you show just the 3 seconds, you bias the reporting.  If you don't show the ad at all, you bias the reporting.

    Now, go take a stress tab and lie down.  Because otherwise, it's going to be a very LONG 8 months...

    not entirely true (none / 1) (#50)
    by infinitera on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:14:12 PM EST

    There was a secretive group (later fingered as a Gephardt-aligned one) that ran anti-Dean ads featuring Osama bin Laden. That one made news.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Gephardt only... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Elendale on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 04:54:31 PM EST

    Kerry's campaign had just as much (if not more) to do with it than Gephbardt. Similar groups have been running ads (mostly anti-Dean, to my knowledge) throughout the Democrat primaries. They get around the campaign finance laws by being "independent", but really they're not independent- they're just not associating with a candidate.

    Impotent electoral reform: bringing ineffective restrictions on rich politicians near you.


    ---

    When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


    [ Parent ]
    my local news station (1.50 / 4) (#60)
    by dimaq on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 05:51:12 AM EST

    as well as the bbc keeps discussing all those democrat nominations like anyone really cares, especially considering that the majority of the viewers don't vote in the usofa. I find that very shiteful. luckily we don't get news of republican nominations here yet. otherwise I'd have to stop watching the telly. FFS this is too usian!

    Problem is, (none / 0) (#61)
    by LJ on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 06:35:37 AM EST

    He's right. There is a very clear definition of a news story, and while I do not know it(I ain't no journalism major), I'm sure there are others who would be glad to provide it. Similarly, one of the local radio stations did the EXACT same thing with one of the radio ads(no commentary, just played the ad). I'm going to listen to other stations today and find out if it's just that one station.

    -LJ
    "A feature is a bug the programmers don't want to fix"

    great free publicity (2.50 / 3) (#62)
    by karb on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 07:00:55 AM EST

    Most major networks were running the ad to highlight the "controversy" the ads caused among, ahem, "families of the victims"

    You know who else gets too much free airtime? Hitler.
    --
    Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

    strategy (none / 1) (#65)
    by ljj on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 10:44:22 AM EST

    It's often an advertising strategy to make the most of your budget by creating controversial advertising that gets free airtime in editorial pages/slots because the ads are discussed in the reporting.

    --
    ljj

    You should stop whining, you are going to lose (1.08 / 12) (#74)
    by sellison on Thu Mar 11, 2004 at 08:56:10 PM EST

    no matter how many wild accusations you make.

    An ad by our glorious leader is NEWS, and it should be played for free, of course.

    Meanwhile the lying dem ads should be accompanied by commentaries that point out the various lies, half-truths, treasonous statements, that dems pathologically make.

    In any even, it hardly matters. Our Leader will sweep dishrag John Kerry from the field one way or another, you traitorous dems will never be allowed to win in these dangerous times!

    "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

    You are joking (none / 0) (#76)
    by triptolemeus on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 06:18:50 AM EST

    Right? Please tell me you are.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (2.20 / 5) (#79)
    by armonica on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:05:45 AM EST

    You guys don't seriously think that Kerry stands a chance do you? I predicted a landslide for Bush before the candidates even started to run. Nobody in the Democratic party stood a chance. That is why Hilary bowed out so early, she knows it too. It is so bad I bet she wouldn't even take a VP spot on the ticket or risk becoming another Ferraro. I hope she does and goes down in flames. I bet she looses her re-election in 2006. I think the people in NY realize they screwed up now.

    The election is Bush's to loose. I predict a repeat of 1984 when Regan kicked Mondale's ass - Regan won every state but Minn. (Mondale's home state) and the territory of Washington DC.

    You guys should join the Republican party. The Democratic party is all screwed up now. Way to many fanatical lefty's in it. I know you won't because you are too stupid (stupid as in a stupor, not that you are dumb. Though that may be true too), to realize you are wrong. I used to be a Democrat, for years. Then I realized how they had no intention of doing things they said and yes - even lied while under oath in a Federal court (looking at you Bill (famous one and other bill's), Jim, Mark). Even over stuff they don't need to lie over.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Nope (none / 0) (#92)
    by chylarides on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 11:52:47 AM EST

    I predicted a landslide for Bush before the candidates even started to run. Nobody in the Democratic party stood a chance.

    That doesn't meen anything. He hasn't won (yet/at all). You are saying this like Bush has already won. Most polls show them being pretty close.

    I predict a repeat of 1984 when Regan kicked Mondale's ass.

    This is very different from 1984, Regan had different issues to deal with. Regan didn't have the whole Iraq issue to deal with and the economic situation, although it had similarities to what is going on now (record deficits), there are many differences as well (jobs). Regan was riding a wave of disenchantment from some of Carter's policies. Don't forget that Clinton had some of the highest support ever, and many surveys also showed that dispite his lying about the affair, if they could have, he would have been re-elected for a third term.

    You guys should join the Republican party. The Democratic party is all screwed up now. Way to many fanatical lefty's in it.

    What about those who don't agree with the Republican's ideals? They should just join anyways? Don't forget that the Republican Party had some serious issues 25 years ago. It happens every once in awhile when people get too smug. And you say left like it's a bad thing, what about the fanatical righties?

    I know you won't because you are too stupid (stupid as in a stupor, not that you are dumb. Though that may be true too), to realize you are wrong. I used to be a Democrat, for years. Then I realized how they had no intention of doing things they said and yes - even lied while under oath in a Federal court (looking at you Bill (famous one and other bill's), Jim, Mark). Even over stuff they don't need to lie over.

    Whoa. You may think they are stupid, but most other people would think you are ignorant. You know what most people call those who refuse to consider any of the policies/ideas of the other side: zealots. But you must be right (as in correct :), because you are SOOO sure. Never has a Republican lied. Nixon was a saint, Bush II never lied about WMD, he was just SO SURE there was an IMINENT THREAT from the "false intelligence". At least Bill Clinton lied about his sex life, which didn't put the country to war.

    It's interesting how the USA has taken such a right turn in the past few years, after 80 years of being one of the most progressive in the world. Those "lefty" policies are one of the reasons why the USA was considered the "freedom capital" of the world, whereas most people outside see the current policies as very hypocritical.

    Also, just for the record, I'm not an American.

    --
    Chris
    [ Parent ]

    Wow, that's wrong. (none / 0) (#106)
    by kmcrober on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 06:03:42 PM EST

    Really, really wrong.

    First, as to Hillary bowing out because she knew she's lose - come on.  Just to clarify, come on.  That is the most tired, hackneyed canard of the election cycle.  Conservatives wet their pants at the thought of a Hillary campaign and slather at the imagined back-room dealings (ohshe'llrunatthelastminuteasasneaknomination ohitsacoverupfromtheclintoncamp ohshe'scutadealwtihdean ohshe'scutadealwithkerry ohshe'llannounceanydaynow).  But it's crap.  She's never made a serious announcement of intent, she's never positioned herself for a presidential run - shit, no one takes that mess seriously other than neocon pundits who want a strawman to chew on.  You'll have to wait four (or maybe eight) years before it even becomes a realistic possibility.  In the meantime, all the "Hillary is planning an '04 run" claptrap is like yammering on about how Vince Foster was killed because he had inside information on her lesbian affair with Martha Stewart.  Rabid neocon fantasies.

    Second, "lose" and "Reagan."  I don't normally go in for spelling and grammar pedantry, but for you, "Regan" is like writing "gawd".  Sacrilege.

    Finally, join the GOP?  Really?  Are you watching the news?  You've got that exactly backwards.  Fanatics in the right are driving a major split in the currently rather monolithic constituency.  The GOP is facing serious troubles in upcoming years over keeping its current bases.  A lot of fiscal conservatives, moderates, and other reasonable people are very concerned over the current party leadership's vocal commitment to far-right zealots.  Exploding deficits, scientific committees being stacked by co-religionists, bigoted constitutional amendments, and other follies are causing die-hard Republicans to start thinking hard about becoming independents or libertarians.  

    The GOP can't swing its unity stick anymore on key issues, such as the anti-gay amendment or federal spending.  Republican lawmakers are itchy at the thought of writing discrimination into the Constitution, and they only barely sqeaked Medicare by.  They had to threaten government experts to bury honest cost analyses to get it through a Republican Congress, and it looks like it wouldn't have passed if they hadn't lied about costs.  Moderates just aren't knuckling under anymore.

    At the same time, there's an idea that Roy Moore could give one hell of a jolt to the Constitution Party by running as essentially a right-wing Nader.  (I had no idea the CP was that big.  When did that happen?)  Personally, I don't see it happening, but Slate has been running some interesting articles on the subject.  They point out, among other things, that Moore must be pissed that when Bush decided to end-run democracy (the most recent time), he did it to put the guy who slapped the 10 Commandment display down on the federal bench.

    The GOP is facing strain from the left and the right, pulling its members into more factionalized camps.  Nader aside, I don't see the same thing happening on the left; we're free to criticize the failures and excesses of the current administration without being hamstrung by the "Well, he's our guy, and he does some of the things we want" sentiment.  

    Bush ran as a uniter, not a divider.  We all know that was a lie, but it's starting to look like the most important and long-term division he's caused has been in his own party.

    [ Parent ]

    I apologize (none / 1) (#107)
    by kmcrober on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 06:27:51 PM EST

    for replying to myself, but this is too relevant to pass up.  Saw it right after I posted the comment.  Wow - it sounds like Hastert is basically saying, yeah, I'll toe the party line and criticize Kerry, but when you get down to it, the Bush administration really is crooked.  

    Excerpt:

    "Q Sir, what did you mean by that last comment: That was with the President; I don't deal with his people anymore?

    Speaker Hastert. Well, we weren't getting straight numbers from his people, and they changed their mind in the middle of the process. So we are going to do what we feel we need to do."

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    You might be relieved to learn (none / 1) (#93)
    by kmcrober on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:00 PM EST

    That YHBT.  Sellison is the cream of the crop; the rare troll that's both interesting and funny.  A neigh-perfect parody and a virtuoso of chaos and discord.  

    It's something like Objective:  Jesus Saves - parody so sublime you sometimes have to squint to see it.

    [ Parent ]

    neigh-perfect? (none / 1) (#112)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:46:29 PM EST

    You're joking, of horse.

    Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
    [ Parent ]
    Which part of sellison (none / 2) (#115)
    by kitten on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 04:15:20 AM EST

    Is either interesting or funny?
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    News and Ratings (none / 1) (#81)
    by n8f8 on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:18:17 AM EST

    Tip #1: News stations tend to broadcast "newsworthy" content.

    Tip #2: News stations viw anything that will gain them ratings as "newsworthy".

    Case in point: I'd much rather see extra coveage ov the bombings in Madrid than who got knocked off American Idol, but that ain't gonna happen. Luckily a local station is broadcasting BBC World Service for about an hour each morning.

    As fa as the Bush vs Kerry thing. Hate to break it to you but Kerry is an accident waiting to happen. On the up-side, the mudslinging should get interresting. Kerry- a man who spend thirty years in politics and did nothing against Bush - the most polarizing president since Nixon.

    Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

    accident waiting to happen? (none / 0) (#110)
    by afr0byte on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 07:10:36 PM EST

    Ummm, you can predict the future....?

    [ Parent ]
    ah your from boston (none / 2) (#83)
    by Altus on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 09:20:06 AM EST

    like me.  that means that the adds arent playing on local stations.  see bush doesnt want to waste money on a state that has already elected kerry (I mean realy, you think hes going to loose in his home state)

    in order for the local news to talk at all about adds they would have to show them.  very few people in this state have seen them because they arent on tv.

    still, I do agree that a voice over might be appropriate but I think you are over reacting.  if this were the national news broadcast I would say something fishy is going on.  but if you think WCVB can get bush the electoral votes of massachusets you are certainly mistaken.
    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    well... (none / 0) (#126)
    by droobie on Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 06:04:51 PM EST

    see bush doesnt want to waste money on a state that has already elected kerry (I mean realy, you think hes going to loose in his home state)

    Al Gore lost in 2000 in not only his home state (Tennessee) but in Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas.

    [ Parent ]

    Massachusets (none / 0) (#144)
    by Altus on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 11:41:09 AM EST

    is a little differnet.  see, we dont vote for republican presidents, never have.  Mass was the only state to vote against Nixon.

    Granted recently we have had a string of republican govenors which is odd.  but kerry is very popular here.  I would be willing to bet $10,000 that he will take this state.

    hell, the DNC is in boston this year.

    its just not worth bush's money to campaign here in the slim hope of taking the mass delegates.  there are much better swing states and republican states in which to spend that money.
    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Erm... (none / 0) (#146)
    by SnowBlind on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 06:24:20 PM EST

    Looks like you voted for Reagen in 1984... why 1984 was too much like 1984... all your fault!

    There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
    [ Parent ]
    news? or pseudo-news? (none / 2) (#85)
    by glory glory on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 10:34:43 AM EST

    During the first 20 minutes of nightime news on the Philadelphia TV stations you might get 3 minutes of real news on what's happening in the world. The rest of it, including the weather hype, is pseudo-news -- "news" about who got kicked off a survivor show or some human-interest emoticon from a neighbor of the latest shooting victim. The Bush ad coverage got wedged in there among the other pathetic excuses for useful information. The only reason anybody saw it was that they were waiting for the real weather forecast at 11:20 or the real game scores at 11:25.

    The problem is not that the pseudo-news exists, but that the news editors mistake lack of alternatives for public approval.

    What would happen if we started demanding real coverage of real events? or lack of reportage on certain issues (like the progress/lack thereof of shutting down terrorist organization's money supply)?



    "demanding" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Perianwyr on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 01:46:57 PM EST

    What exactly would you "demand"? Specifically. I don't want to hear any fuck-the-man. Who would you "demand" it of? Again, no fuck-the-man. How would you "demand" it? State this without using the phrases "grassroots" or "bottom-up" (or other similar bromides.) Why would people support this "demand"ing? Have you considered the possibility that people like the elision of reality? How do you fight that?

    [ Parent ]
    sheesh ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by glory glory on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 10:13:55 AM EST

    no comprehension of the ironies here.

    [ Parent ]
    It's Kerry's doing. (2.60 / 5) (#91)
    by SlimyTadpole on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 11:42:09 AM EST

    The reason the media is playing the Bush ads from begining to end is mostly the doing of Kerry's response to them. He, and the DNC, came out and labeled them as "attack ads". However, after viewing them, it becomes pretty obvious that they are not attack ads (as they never attack Kerry). But one can't just play an excerpt from an ad to show that there is no attack. It has to be shown in it's entirety. Ultimately, how much media coverage a given ad will receive is based largely on what the opposition says about it. The Democrat primary ads didn't receive as much coverage since the candidate's "camps" weren't throwing hissy fits over each others ads. So, will Kerry's ads get the "full-play" treatment from the media? Well, that will depend on how Republicans react to them.

    Privately held stations (none / 3) (#94)
    by valar on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 01:00:25 PM EST

    ... can broadcast whatever, and I wouldn't consider it an abuse by the administration. If they were requiring stations to do so, I would be angry. If there were a democrat presidential candidate getting free press, I wouldn't be upset. If a libertarian candidate got free press, I would be absolutely ecstatic.

    There is the issue of whether this could be considered a contribution or not. Most of our current campaign law deals with cashola, not dealing in favor. Why? I would guess because it is nearly impossible to draw the line somewhere that completely eliminates the advantage of one side or the other. Everyone sees some speech as pro-some-party and the guy next door sees it as pro-the-other-party speech.

    Basically, what it comes down to is that you can't trust any media, and if you can't disern Tom Brokaw's or Wolf Blitzer's thoughts from your own, perhaps you need to turn the tv off and get some fresh air.

    ABC World News Tonight and ads (2.40 / 5) (#96)
    by Merc on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 02:04:08 PM EST

    I really liked what ABC World News Tonight did with a Bush ad this week. They essentially picked it apart, and analyzed the arguments. The ad claimed that John Kerry was going to raise 900 billion in taxes. ABC examined that claim, saying that the only commitment that Kerry has made was to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which would result in $150 billion in reclaimed money. They then said that Kerry's health care plan was estimated at N over M years (I don't remember the details), and said that that could end up costing $900 billion, but that Kerry hasn't explained how he would pay for it.

    The point is, without being too partisan, they really took the ad apart, and destroyed all the claims it made. I, for one, sure hope they continue this trend.

    On the other hand, I still prefer watching the ads filtered through the Daily Show. The "whaaa??" sound when something outrageous happens is just what I need.



    So where will the $900,000,000,000 come from? (none / 3) (#97)
    by SlimyTadpole on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 02:36:28 PM EST

    If the government is to spend $900 billion more, then where is that money going to come from? Kerry's wife? If Kerry proposes a new entitlement program that costs 900 billion, then that means that $900 billion more must be collected in taxes than otherwise would have.

    Hence, Kerry would either have to raise taxes by $900 billion, or engage in deficit spending above and beyond even our current levels. But Kerry has already criticized (and rightly so) the current levels of deficit spending.

    [ Parent ]

    Cuts, medicare raids, blah (2.20 / 5) (#100)
    by Merc on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 03:36:01 PM EST

    Who knows where it will come from. The main issue is that he hasn't said it will be taxes (even though that's the most likely source). The fact is, I like the way ABC debunked the "fact" that Kerry was going to raise taxes, but did explain that he has promised programs that will cost $900 billion. So insead of debating whether or not Kerry's plan to raise taxes is a good one, a plan that doesn't exist, the debate can instead be about where he'll find the money to fund his promises, and whether those ideas are worth funding.



    [ Parent ]
    "Who knows where it will come from?" (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stickerboy on Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 11:02:06 PM EST

    Well, gee, that's some responsible fiscal thinking from the side of the political spectrum that is trying to assail Bush for his own spending priorities!

    "Who knows where it will come from?"  Who cares?  Money grows on trees!

    "Who knows where it will come from?" I mean, what's a few trillion more dollars in debt to pass onto our great-grandchildren?

    "Who knows where it will come from?" I may like to parrot MoveOn.org ads about running up the deficit, but hey, what's a Presidency without expensive ideas?

    "Who knows where it will come from?" Hey, that's an unfair question for the grown-ups to answer!

    [ Parent ]

    Goose/Gander (none / 0) (#132)
    by Eccles on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 11:04:41 AM EST

    So where's the money goingto come from for the Medicare prescription program Bush signed, and is currently estimated at costing $530 billion over the next ten years? Do we call that a tax increase?

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 11:49:48 AM EST

    It's a deficit raiser. Since Kerry (allegedly) doesn't want to raise the deficit, he must want to raise taxes.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Umm... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Eccles on Tue Mar 16, 2004 at 04:18:04 PM EST

    Bush claimed he would have the deficit cut in half too, despite the Medicare spending increase. So both make the same promise regarding the deficit, and have the same possible solutions. Are you trying to be funny, or are you truly clueless? Given your nick, I'm assuming the former.

    [ Parent ]
    Explain this (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cro Magnon on Tue Mar 16, 2004 at 05:51:25 PM EST

    to my primitive caveman mind. If Bush & Kerry make the same empty promises, and have the same "solutions", why should I vote for Kerry? It seems like Tweedle-Dee vs Dum to me.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Look at it this way... (none / 0) (#149)
    by rogun on Sun Mar 21, 2004 at 04:34:44 AM EST

    If Bush and Kerry are Tweedle-Dee vs Dum, then you have nothing to lose regardless of how you vote. However, Bush has already been given a chance to prove what he can do, but Kerry hasn't. Perhaps Kerry will surprise you and be better than expected. But if not, than he's simply Tweedle-Dum and you didn't lose anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Scarborough Country (2.20 / 5) (#99)
    by davros4269 on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 03:08:48 PM EST

    I caught Scarborough Country last night on MSNBC. They showed an ad, in it's entirity, twice. It very obviously looked like Joe was doing his part to help get Bush re-elected.
    Will you squirm when you are pecked? Quack.
    The only reason.. (2.00 / 6) (#101)
    by FisheBulb on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 04:11:02 PM EST

    There is one reason why they are playing the ad. Because it's been made a controversy. SO OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO. Had the democrats not pissed and moaned about it, it wouldnt be on the news. The 9/11 angle is a bunch of crap anyways, 4 seconds of shots of an event that, shocking as it may seem, did in fact happen during Bush's presidency, and for right are wrong, did shape a lot of the current climate in the country, is not that big of a deal. As much as some people want to deny it, bush was president during 9/11, did take a number of actions (again, for right or wrong, that isnt the issue) and has had a tremedous impact on the world today. I was more sickened by those stock "wholesome child and family" images than the 9/11 footage. Atleast that was REAL.

    No, they play the ad because they always do (none / 0) (#119)
    by VValdo on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 02:19:01 PM EST

    There is one reason why they are playing the ad. Because it's been made a controversy.

    Wrong. The only reason that the campaigns pre-release their TV ads is hoping for exact coverage like this. It's the political equivalent of "Entertainment Tonight"-- give them something in advance and they'll run it for free. Lazy stations have been doing this for years-- this is nothing new.

    Most stations, but obviously not all, have wised up to this and will only run a snippet of the ad, usually not full-frame and clearly marked as "advertisement". Crappy stations or biased ones run the ad in their entirety.

    All that matters to the campaign is that they get the images on TV. What people say about the images are less important.

    From here:

    A Denver Post March 30, 1999 story tells us of the visit to Denver of CBS 60 Minutes correspondents Leslie Stahl. She was in town to participate in the 1999 Unique Lives & Experiences lecture series.  She gave a light-hearted talk of her experiences as a reporter, but had one serious note about how the power of television is not just the pictures on the screen, but the imagery those pictures create.  One example, she told of a report she did in the closing days of the 1980 presidential election that was highly critical of Ronald Reagan.  In the clip, Reagan was seen "being presidential," by greeting crowds, cutting ribbons, and other "positive" activities.  But, in the voiceover that accompanied the clip, Stahl was being critical of Reagan because of his inconsistencies with his California governership. 

    Only minutes after the report, Stahl received a call from Reagan's campaign staff thanking her for the report. "Didn't you hear what I said?"   She said, and they replied, "Nobody heard what you said. When the pictures are powerful, and what you say contradicts the pictures, the pictures will drown you out."

    Her report was then shown months later to a focus group where the sound was eliminated, the participants overwhelmingly thought it was a Reagan campaign ad.   When the sound was adding, still over 50% of the group thought it was a "positive" view of Reagan.

    W
    This is my .sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    [ Parent ]

    Two things (1.87 / 8) (#105)
    by trhurler on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 05:20:24 PM EST

    First of all, if you ask a journalist, you'll find out: whatever's controversial is news. They could care less what you think; if it has legs, they run it.

    Second, regarding the 9/11 imagery: Do you think those firefighters' and police unions would be whining if it were a Democrat exploiting the imagery for personal gain? Of course not. They're pissed, NOT because of the exploitation, but because the exploiter is someone they disagree with. Oh fucking well. Just try and imagine what Clinton would have done with such a PR windfall. There'd be a new dollar coin with the towers and an airplane on one side and Clinton getting head on the other. Or maybe let's see what Gore would have done: oh, that's right, he'd be stumping for creating a wildlife preserve in the footprint of the towers. Maybe Kerry could advertise his plan to make America safe from such attacks by inviting terrorists to hippie antiwar meetings with Jane Fonda.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Democrats don't like Bush doing this, but they'd have done the same thing IN A HEARTBEAT if they had the chance. Tough shit.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    ummmm (none / 0) (#109)
    by afr0byte on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 07:06:45 PM EST

    You don't know if any of the stuff you just said is true. It's impossible to know.

    [ Parent ]
    Easy enough to extrapolate from the past. (none / 1) (#111)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 08:44:50 PM EST

    or even the present. Many democrats are trying to blame Bush for 9/11 - so if they're making an issue of it, why can't he?


    Will we line up for Grand Theft Auto 5 if it's the exact same thing, only with prettier texture-mapped bruises on the whores? -- David Wong
    [ Parent ]
    Every post he makes is like that. (none / 0) (#116)
    by steve h on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 05:00:02 AM EST

    Best to ignore him.

    [ Parent ]
    The "news" is too meta (none / 3) (#113)
    by bolson on Fri Mar 12, 2004 at 10:21:31 PM EST

    Rather than talk about the issues, or even talk about the candidate's characters, it seems 90% of the content is about the race. Not what they say but how they say it. Style over substance. Neither mode you mentioned is what I think proper reporting on the ad would be. How about something like "Bush put out a new ad today, he reiterated warnings about the hostile world he sees and the warm fuzzy platitudes of how he wants to make it better. No specific policy points were stated."
    Making Democracy Safe for the World (change the voting system)
    Yes, it's too meta (none / 0) (#145)
    by p3d0 on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 01:36:47 PM EST

    Reminds me of this.
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
    [ Parent ]
    9/11 (none / 3) (#122)
    by kurioszyn on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 07:04:23 PM EST

    "I'm a Democrat, and I'm furious over the Bush ads; yes, about the blatant use of 9/11 imagery,"

    Blatant use of 9/11 ?

    He was the fucking president when this thing happened and was responsible for taking care of this problem ... and now you are telling us that he cannot call on his own record while running for reelection ?

    Nuts.

    Bush Promised Explicitly (none / 1) (#135)
    by FantocheDoSock on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:46:35 PM EST

    not to do this. He's doing it anyway.

    And he could perfectly well "call on his record" without being so gauche. He could use a little rhetoric; If he referred to "new security challanges" or "great tragedies... and great victories" everyone would know exactly what he was talking about.

    But he didn't choose to use an approach like that, he chose to shove scary pictures in everyone's face, to fan the dying embers of terror hysteria, and to break his promise besides. And he's getting called on it. Boo-hoo.

    He was... responsible for taking care of this [9/11] problem...

    Funny you should mention that, yeah, he was responsible, wasn't he? So, is that problem all fixed now? Yes? Then why the scare tactics? Wait, you say the problem isn't fixed after all? Well, why not, dammit? What has he been up to, setting a new vacation-days-in-office record or something? Oh, wait.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#137)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 10:59:27 PM EST

    You are blined by your hatred.


    [ Parent ]
    But is he wrong? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Wildfire Darkstar on Wed Mar 24, 2004 at 11:46:53 AM EST

    Well? Is he? Bush did promise not to use images of 9/11 for political purposes, and he reneged on that promise. How does liking or hating the man and his administration factor into that at all?

    -- Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
    [ Parent ]
    news bulletin (none / 2) (#123)
    by banffbug on Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 05:56:35 AM EST

    face it america, your country's fucked.

    Probably, but what country isn't? Canada? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Frequanaut on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 08:29:10 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Ha haw! You'd be surprised. (none / 0) (#139)
    by tap dancing lenin puppet on Tue Mar 16, 2004 at 05:08:51 PM EST

    Actually, between the Liberal sponsorship scandal, the joke of a party known as the new Conservative Party, the deliberate defunding of healthcare in order to promote a private for-profit solution (not necessarily saying that's wrong... just that it's currently not here, leaving us with no suitable replacement for the degrading current system), the severe under-funding of our defense department... well... we're pretty fucked too.

    Cheers from the north.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny (none / 0) (#125)
    by ShiftyStoner on Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 03:27:12 PM EST

     I'm surprized I didn't see it this way. That add is singed into my brain.

     Kerry, wrong on taxes, wrong on defence. Do you want presidant that proposed a 9,000,000,000 tax increase. Do you want a presidant that wants osama ben laden as vice presidant? Vote bush, an honest(rofl), hard working(rofl), brave(rofl) christian. Honest Bush never denide having WMD. He is working hard on getting relected. He isn't afrade to act like he faught in a war. You have all heard it by now I'm sure.  

     Their little diversion worked on me. Still hate bush of course.

     You know, acting like their saying bush is being naughty. Bad bush, you came out with negitive ads to soon. Bad boy. Realy, it's just a good excuse to play his add on the news over and over and over and over. Just like they repeat everything on the news over and over.

     I would like to add to your point, all those states that bush didn't pay to put ads in, he's got an ad in all 50 now.

     AND this whole gay mariage crap. What is this shit. I go a weak or to without watching the news, decide to turn in on to get this weaks news and they're still blabing about gay mariage. Now, Im homophobic, just like old bushy, but this has to be brainwashing. Against the gays. Oh yeah, because this shit will just piss people off.

     It will make them sick. It just may spark a hatred in them for the gays. Everytime they want to turn on the TV, GAY MARIAGE. Then, without warning, to gays making out. BAM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Sure, you can change the chanel, you already seen it, besides, change chanel BAM GAY MARIED ASS FUCKERS. Change again, BAM gay cowboy that wants a date.

     Either that or the gay mariage stuff is a smokescrean.
    ( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

    A Question. (none / 2) (#127)
    by HappySocialtarian on Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 10:26:54 PM EST

    Why aren't you bitching about stations that do the same thing with Moveon.org ads, or does your righteous indignation only extend to your opponents?

    Different (none / 0) (#134)
    by FantocheDoSock on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:32:34 PM EST

    The MoveOn ads became news because of the way they were treated in the marketplace. And they were apparently treated that way in the marketplace because of their content. Which makes the actual content of a MoveOn ad newsworthy. You can't have an intelligent discussion on the appropriateness of the do-not-air decisions unless you know what the items in question are.

    If major media outlets start turning Bush ads away because they're "not appropriate," then the content of those ads will also become legitimately newsworthy, and in that case, airing big chunks of the ad as part of a news story would make sense.

    [ Parent ]

    same applies to bush ads (none / 0) (#141)
    by klamath on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 12:38:36 AM EST

    If major media outlets start turning Bush ads away because they're "not appropriate," then the content of those ads will also become legitimately newsworthy, and in that case, airing big chunks of the ad as part of a news story would make sense.
    The Bush ads are controversial for (at least) the following reasons:
    1. They represent "negative campaigning", at least according to the media.
    2. They allegedly misuse 9/11 imagery.
    3. They feature a dark-skinned and "suspicious-looking" individual intended to be a terrorist; since he looks Arab-American, some people feel that is innappropriate for obvious reasons
    Every single one of these areas of controversy is a direct result of the content of the ads. Thus, it seems to me that the content of the Bush ads is very much relevant to any discussion of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Quite (none / 0) (#143)
    by FantocheDoSock on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 10:07:53 AM EST

    As the story says:
    "The Bush/Cheney Campaign has raised over $190 million dollars and has started to put that money to work in new advertisements, the first featuring first lady Laura Bush. [cut to the commercial, play it start to finish].

    For the record, neither story had any commentary mentioning the whole 9/11-imagery fiasco...the imagery fiasco was not why they were playing the ads.

    Now, I didn't see this "news" broadcast myself. But it doesn't sound like these ads were being played because they were at the heart of any controversy. They were being played as if the ads themselves were newsworthy.

    And although controversy over Bush's ads could make them something of a news item, the situation is still different from the moveon.org ads. The Bush ads, after all, are actually airing, as most ads do. The general public does not require assistance from the TV news to view these ads. They are not in a novel situation in this regard. The moveon.org ads, on the other hand, absent any exposure on the news, are only practically available to broadband internet users, and ones who deliberately go looking for them at that. The media moguls won't take moveon.org's money. That's a novel and arguably newsworthy situation.

    So I still say: If some stations refuse to air funded Bush ads, that could be a news item. The simple fact that Bush is producing ads is not a news item.

    And hey, if you think that the moveon.org ads don't deserve the news exposure that they've received, I could respect that position. I just don't think it's defensible to equate the moveon.org ad situation with the Bush ad situation.

    [ Parent ]

    some perspective... (none / 1) (#142)
    by klamath on Wed Mar 17, 2004 at 12:59:08 AM EST

    The gist of this story seems to depend on exactly how the ad was presented by a particular anchor and television station. Was their coverage inappropriate? It is difficult to say, since we have no way of actually watching the coverage in question.

    But if the implication is that the media is somehow biased in favor of Bush, I don't think that is supported by recent history. The Democratic nomination process was one long orgy of Bush-bashing. The airing of a single Bush campaign ad is insignificant when compared to the free press generated whenever Kerry or Edwards one an early primary and had their victory speech televised. Or what about the televised debates between Democratic candidates? Those were essentially free air time for the candidates to collectively slam Bush (if there is anything two Democratic presidential candidates can usually agree on, it is blaming the Republicans -- which applies in reverse, of course).

    Ha ha. You're democracy sucks. (none / 2) (#147)
    by tiamat on Sat Mar 20, 2004 at 02:04:13 PM EST



    My own experience... (none / 1) (#148)
    by rogun on Sun Mar 21, 2004 at 03:35:45 AM EST

    I'm sure most of you have already heard about the fake Medicare news report, which was fed to local stations around the country by the Department of Health and Human Services. If you haven't, I'll sum it up for you quickly. The "news report" was created to stimulate support for the Bush Administrations' new Medicare Plan. It uses paid actors to play news reporters, to give it a sense of legitimacy and objectivity, who explain how the new Medicare plan is good for you. It also has scenes showing a crowd cheering Bush as he talks to them about the plan. All the local stations have to do is throw it in their regular newscast, without costing them a dime.

    Here's a report in the Denver Post about it:

    Bush crew feeds 'news,' TV swallows

    There was another report last week about a Pensacola, FL station airing a news segment condemning John Kerry for questionable reasons, such as supposedly knowing about the 9/11 attacks before they happened. When outside reporters contacted the station for information on its' sources, the reporters were told that it was only an "editorial" segment.

    I'm not sure if my local stations have been doing anything similar to what the author experienced, because I don't watch the local news much anymore. However, during the 2000 election the station manager of the local ABC affiliate here would end some news broadcasts with his own personal message, by endorsing Bush for President and giving his reasons why. Unlike newspapers, I believe this was once illegal for television stations, but the law had lapsed or something before the 2000 election.

    I guess it's not surprising that people are turning off the news and that trust in the Government continues to fall, according to various polls.

    Depressing but not surprising (none / 0) (#151)
    by ocrow on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:25:08 AM EST

    The wholesale use of political ad's by a news program is not good journalism.  This is unfortunate, but not particularly surprising.

    Remember that when you are watching television you are not the consumer, you are the product.  The consumers are the television advertizers, the vendor is the television station, and the product is the attention of the viewers.  The vendor purchases its goods (your time) from you by entertaining you, and sells your time to the advertizers.  To the vendor, the goal is to buy their goods for the cheapest price possible, which means running any shlock programming that will hold your attention.  

    If you are willing to sit through another political ad from a party to whom the owners of the TV network would probably happily donate anyway, then that's free programming and the network is happy.  Your only available choice for not participating in this charade is to refuse to watch.


    Re: Depressing but not surprising (none / 0) (#152)
    by Korimyr the Rat on Sat Apr 17, 2004 at 10:59:44 AM EST

    There's also screaming like a raped ape, a course of action I highly recommend.

    This is a fairly blatant attempt to circumvent equal-airtime and political contribution laws, and should be punished.

    --
    "Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
    Founding Member of 'Retarded Monkeys Against the Restriction of Weapons Privileges'
    [ Parent ]

    Stations playing Bush campaign ads for free during news? | 152 comments (138 topical, 14 editorial, 3 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!