Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonkie who wrote (29311)	2/13/2004 2:45:38 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793964

"Let's just imagine for a minute that Drudge had printed the same story except he had made it about Junior instead of Kerry." If that Drudge story had been about Bush instead of Kerry, it would have been the lead story on every major network & the front page news in the print media. Just look at how differently the media handled Clinton's draft dodging when real evidence of guilt, lying & cover-ups existed & how they have gone after Bush in the absence of credible evidence. Partisan Tools, Not Objective Observers mediaresearch.org

To: zonkie who wrote (29311)	2/13/2004 3:53:20 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

I see the story has been out for about 12 hours now and not 1 reputable website in the US has printed it. I applaud them. The international press has begun to print the story. It will become widely reported by later today. smh.com.au news.scotsman.com mirror.co.uk thesun.co.uk news.independent.co.uk

To: zonkie who wrote (29311)	2/13/2004 5:34:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793964

Would you still be saying the same things? About the media coverage? Yep. This isn't a "wild rumor." Other than the fact that reporters know about it, and are investigating it, you have Clark discussing it. Charges that Bush was AWOL are just as unsupported as this is. WSJ.com has covered it. So have all the major Blogs, left and right. The media gets "prissy" about their "standards" only when it suits. We went through almost exactly the same dance on the Monica story. Newsweek found out about it, and spiked it. Drudge broke it. Everybody tried to pretend it wasn't there. And then, "Le Deluge." The major media is no longer the "Gatekeeper." Once this hits the Internet, they owe it to their readers to cover it. The Reporters should have been all over Kerry in open Press conference yesterday during his campaign, and refusing to accept "no comment." They won't accept that answer from the Bush camp on the Guard Story.

To: zonkie who wrote (29311)	2/13/2004 6:04:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

It started with a Clark operative on Feb 6th. Sullivan IT HITS BRITAIN: We have several stories in major papers in Britain on the alleged Kerry story. Some interesting angles. The conservative Telegraph suggests the following: Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican "dirty tricks". They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush. I don't see any evidence of this at all, despite my reader's worries yesterday. (I'm even beginning, in my paranoid moments, to wonder if that email was a plant. It reads a little too convincingly. Was I being set up by some Democratic activist to promote the new Dem line? I have no idea. But I'm ready to believe anything in this town.) In fact, it now turns out that the first blog reference to the story - which I linked to yesterday - was made by a man who worked for Wesley Clark. watchblog.com tip: Jonah.) Of course, that might mean nothing, as well. The story is on the front-page of the Times of London, which I think means it's arrived globally. Oddly, it's not in the Guardian. Maybe they think it's a Republican plot as well. This is another new feature of the Internet, isn't it? The English-speaking media are fusing somewhat - it's so easy to click and read - so the number of "serious" English-speaking outlets increases the odds of any rumor story going mainstream. To recap: the food-chain is Clark or "X" blabbing to Washington reporters off-the-record; said reporters spilling to Drudge; Drudge to the blogs; then the Brits get to write about an "Internet scandal," which loops back to Drudge. And now ... Imus. Dizzy yet?