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: LindyBill who wrote (58767)	8/8/2004 11:17:03 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

IS THE FIRST FAMILY 'UNFIT'? NY Post August 8, 2004 -- The New York Times sure lived up to its motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print," with its broad coverage last week of the terrorist threats to the Big Apple. One news item, however, was apparently not fit for readers' eyes: The arrival of First Lady Laura Bush and her daughters at one of the targeted buildings. Indeed, on Tuesday alone, the Times devoted at least half a dozen articles to the terror alert, totaling more than 5,000 words — and not a one mentioned the morale-boosting appearance of President Bush's entire family at the Citigroup Center in Midtown. How'd it happen? "We simply had more news . . . than we could accommodate," a Times flack said. "There was no calculated decision to omit that event." Yeah, right. Readers heard from Andrew Greene, a computer consultant who said the area might be "overprotected," and from other workers, like Goe Giamanco, who fretted about the high-visability presence of machine-gun-toting cops. Sen. Charles Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Pataki each got detailed mentions. One story focused on the psychological impact. A shrink, Andy Morgan, said the alerts might "lower anxiety." Another piece tallied financial costs. Maybe the show of solidarity by the Bush women, a sort of small-scale domestic version of the president's Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Iraq, was crowded out by still other stories. Like the Times' front-pager suggesting that the Bush team's use of "old" data made the alerts seem politically motivated. Or the large story and photo hammering Bush from the opposite angle: "Kerry Says Bush Has Not Acted Quickly Enough on Terrorism Defenses." Always room in the Times, it seems, to bash Bush — whether for being too cautious or not cautious enough. But a positive piece on the Bushes? It's just not "fit" for the "paper of record." Typical. NEW YORK POST