Anatomy of a Spin Campaign

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    How does this:

    Go to this?

    It takes a certain amount of dishonesty, venality, and the complicity or complacency of the media.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040002
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    The ability to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons" means conducting foreign affairs in compliance with international laws. This is something the Bush administration has rejected all along. It is also the position of every US administration, Democrat and Republican, since the Second World War - up until G W Bush. Instead the Bushies have advocated a new doctrine in which the US, and the US only, decides what is right in the world, and based on those decisions, we must be free to use our military power wherever and whenever we see fit. The Bush doctrine and the Bush campaign would have us believe that it is this kind of rogue "cowboy" mentality that will save us from "terrorists."

    No one has advocated, least of all Kerry, that the US or any other nation does not have the right to preemptive action if there is a legitimate and imminent danger of attack. This is both a right that is enshrined in the UN Charter and a principle the US has always maintained. What this means in reality is that Kerry and the rest of the world agreed with the right of the US to attack Afghanistan after 9/11, even though it was not the Taliban itself that launched those attacks. What Bush did in manufacturing excuses for the invasion of Iraq does not pass any test, global or otherwise. It was once upon a time called "lying to justify a war of aggression."

    The fact the media is so compliant with Bush's spin only shows what cowards they really are in taking on the powerful. Some do so because they are lazy, some because they want to curry favor among the powerful. Still others (Fox News, etc.) do so because of ideological reasons. Whatever the reason, the fact reporters just repeat the spin coming out of the White House is beneath contempt.
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #3
    Meh. Just as dishonest as lots of other things Bush has been saying during the campaign.

    Myself, I think Kerry ought to play it up -- the difference between what he said and how Bush is spinning it.
     
  4. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    The Kerry campaign is running ads in the battleground states refuting this misquote (which means we'll never see them in California), but that's entirely beside the point. Even the more reputable news outlets aren't so much going after what is clearly a misrepresentation of Kerry's stated position as they're portraying it as a political event. This means they run tape of Bush making this outrageous accusation and counter it with either a clip of the Kerry response ad or a voice-over saying that the Kerry campaign disagrees with the characterization of his position. At no point has the media so far as I've heard done the obviously responsible, journalistic thing and examined the truth the Bush claim. This is what I mean by the complicity of the media. The press is supposed to sort out truth from untruth, facts from falsehoods. This is their job, not just to report "he said -- he said."
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    If you listen to what Bush says about Kerry, you don't like him very much (which I didn't). If you actually listen to Kerry (when he isn't rambling and boring you to death) he actually makes some good points. When I listen to people talking about things they dislike about Kerry, they aren't actually talking about him most of the time. They are talking about his public image thanks to conservatives and Swift Boat Vets, et al. I admit, I used to fall for it as well. That's why the debates did work in changing public opinion.

    I'm surprised more people aren't bugged by the whole "Liberals/France/Foreigners" = bad/terrorists/anti-American/un-patriotic. Nature of spin and blind hatred I suppose.
     

Share This Page