I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sully- who wrote (4408)	8/26/2004 4:12:09 PM
From: Sully-	of 35834

<font size=4><font color=blue>KERRY AND THE "NEW YORK TIMES"<font color=black> On Aug 19th, Kerry finally broke his silence and attacked Bush for supporting the Swift Vets. The Aug 20th New York Times broke the story for the first time with three articles. <font size=3><font color=blue> Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad <font color=black> nytimes.com <font color=blue> Bush Aide Says White House Is Not Linked to Anti-Kerry Ad <font color=black> nytimes.com <font color=blue> Kerry Calls Ad Group a 'Front for the Bush Campaign' <font color=black> nytimes.com <font size=4> The Kerry and Bush stories had to be written on the night of the 19th. The research and length of the <font color=blue>"Friendly Fire"<font color=black> story had to take several days to a week. The content of the <font color=blue>"Friendly Fire"<font color=black> article and the thrust of Kerry's attack the night before are identical. They both claim that the Swift Vet group is a Bush sponsored attack on Kerry. This frame was picked up from the <font color=blue>"Times"<font color=black> by all the networks and most of the rest of the press. This AP article today shows it's influence. <font size=3><font color=blue> News Editorials Weigh in on Kerry Furor By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: August 26, 2004 Filed at 2:15 a.m. ET With a mix of passion and dismay, newspaper editorials are weighing in on the furor over John Kerry's service in Vietnam, with many coming to his defense, a few standing behind his critics and others bemoaning the attention to a 30-year-old war rather than today's problems.....Some laid a significant share of the blame upon Bush for not demanding the anti-Kerry group stop its advertisments,..... <font color=black> nytimes.com. <font size=4> The Washington Post ran this on Aug 22nd. <font size=3><font color=blue> AD WATCH \| Evaluating the Accuracy of Political Advertising Kerry Fires at Vietnam 'Smear' .......There is no evidence that the Bush campaign "supports a front group" that produced the attack ad. There are numerous ties between Bush aides and the veterans' backers, but there are similar ties between Kerry and some liberal groups running anti-Bush ads...... <font color=black> washingtonpost.com <font size=4> What are the chances that Kerry was not aware of the content of the <font color=blue>"Friendly Fire"<font color=black> story before he decided how to <font color=blue>"frame"<font color=black> his opening attack? Kerry's approach exactly matched the <font color=blue>"Times."<font color=black> I think what is going on is obvious.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next