We got this in most of our papers and the main tv-news: all (even the conservative media) media pointing out that this was another example of an election promotion tour. (And the more centrist/left commentating that we should be glad that we don't elect families here in Europe but parties/singlle persons.)
I wonder why Hillary and Chealsea attending events in 1996 were not presented as 'election promotion tours'? Are you saying the first family should just closet themselves in the White House (which would also be criticized you understand) because anything they do, say, or show up for will be considered election promotion?
For that matter, none of the Clintons could sneeze without getting prominant, if not first page, coverage in the New York Times. And of course any comments made by Senator Kerry, that did get NY Times front page coverage, were purely altruistic and in no way politically motivated.
Well, you've another kind of "political culture" in the USA.
I doubt that more than 1% of Germans know, how many (if) children our president and/or the chancelor has got. (Admitting that the latter is even more difficult, due to a couple of divorces :wink: )
The family of the head of state/leader of the cabinet doesn't (usually) have official tasks (especially not all the children).
No doubt that's true Walter. It's just the intentional, sometimes cruel unfairness of it that gets to me sometimes. Laura Bush is a gentle, pleasant, intelligent, caring woman who I believe has never hurt, or even severely criticized, anybody. If she was a Democrat, she would have made the front page with a visit to New York to show support for New Yorkers beseiged by terrorist threats. There is no way in hell New York state is going to vote Bush, so the idea the trip was politically motivated is almost ludicrous. If New York was a battleground state, there might be a case made for that.
She deserved better.
Bias? Yes, I think the New York Post exercised media bias by printing an opinion letter about media bias by a biased subscriber about its competitor, the New York Times.
It seems there are plenty of biased accusations about bias to spread around.
And there is no greater bias demonstrated than by those who condemn the messenger rather than dealing with the message.
I wouldn't have known the Bushes even went to New York if the Post hadn't reported it. The New York Times certainly didn't.
And there is no greater bias demonstrated than by those who condemn the messenger rather than address the message.
The irony of it all! ROFL
IS THE FIRST FAMILY 'UNFIT'?
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. . . . 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, [said the writer of this biased opinion letter published by a Times competitor when the writer condemned the Times' messenger.]
Big deal, Laura Bush spends one day at citigroup center probably escorted by dozens of body guards when thousands of people work their every single day of the year without body guards.
How is that even news? If Kerry or even Mrs. Kerry spends a day at New York with dozens of body guards, should he be plastered all over the news too portrayed as somekind of brave hero? You seem to think so
Am I nuts in thinking that the New York Times exercises good judgment in sticking to what's actually worth covering.
But Kerry was. Laura wasn't.
So you're saying, Mrs. Kerry or Mr. Kerry was portrayed as a brave hero for appearing in New York during the terror threats? I never saw a single article that did so. Can you direct me to an example?
No, Senator Kerry was given front page coverage to criticize the administration for not doing enough re the terrorist threats, even while others were criticizing the administration for overdoing it.
I don't see that anyone said Laura Bush was pretending to be a 'brave hero'. She was there, as countless first ladies have done as well, to lend moral support for a difficult situation.
Do you ever wonder why some people are so mean and hateful and hold well meaning people in such contempt? Why is that do you think?
Laura Bush showing up at a building is not morale building. It hardly even rates as front page news.
Did she do anything special there? Did it affect the market? Did the Bush campaign publicize it? No.
Besides. Laura Bush showing up at one of the 'targets' of our later terror alert only highlights the idiocy of the system - if Bush really believed that the building was going to be blown up, the SS would NEVER have let her go!!!! It exposes the warning for the sham it is.
Do you really feel that Laura Bush should attract even remotely the same amount of media attention as someone who is running for the president of the United States? Are you really saying that? That is absurd. Laura Bush does not attract the media because she is boring and she is far from a significant figure in our society. She has more or less stayed low key and away from the medias attention. She isn't interesting or worthwhile news. Heaven forbid one of the most reputable news papers in the country doesn't put the story on their first page. I wonder if The Wallstreet Journal put it on their front page. If they didn't they too must be very much anti-republican.
Virgil in the Inferno wrote:
Do you really feel that Laura Bush should attract even remotely the same amount of media attention as someone who is running for the president of the United States? Are you really saying that? That is absurd. Laura Bush does not attract the media because she is boring and she is far from a significant figure in our society. She has more or less stayed low key and away from the medias attention. She isn't interesting or worthwhile news. Heaven forbid one of the most reputable news papers in the country doesn't put the story their first page. I wonder if The Wallstreet Journal put it on their front page. If they didn't they too must be very much anti-republican.
Let me get this straight, the First Lady of the US isn't a big story but some hack with a ketchup company showing up some where is? It does show the bias of the media. Almost all women on the left are media darlings but those on the right are just "not news".
"Let me get this straight, the First Lady of the US isn't a big story but some hack with a ketchup company showing up some where is? It does show the bias of the media. Almost all women on the left are media darlings but those on the right are just "not news". "
No in my opinion Mrs. Kerry is for the most part not news worthy. I really couldn't care less about the first lady.
However she does get more news because she has a much more dynamic personality than Mrs. Bush (who is seen as a sweet, but quiet woman who much prefers to be kept out of the spot light). I'm sure if Mrs. Bush wanted to be as outspoken and vigorous as Mrs. Kerry she too would earn far more news coverage then she deserves.
Though I would hardly call Mrs. Kerry a "media darling" from the responses she has gotten from most of the press. She has received much negative press (deserved or not) due to her nature as an outspoken and opinionated person.
Also i was just wondering in what newspapers are you talking about that published Mrs. Kerry visiting some place by herself, at the same time neglecting to mention Mrs. Bush visiting New York?
So you don't trust the New York Times Foxy, what news sources do you trust?
Um, would you care to elaborate on how you drew that conclusion ebrown?
this is such a great forum! im so glad i found it. you all seem so well informed and intelligent. anyhow. i didnt read anything about mrs. bush visiting the citicorp building , or what day she visited, but as we all know now the terrosist threats as cited by tom ridge turned out to be three or more years old. so maybe it was more of a publicity stunt on the part of the bush administration. im sure mr. bush wouldnt let his wife and children get into a potential terrorist situation if it wasnt completly safe to do so......
The older information was included with new Soulshine and in no way negated the timeliness of information provided by recently arrested al Qaida representatives. Its a political year and everybody is putting their spin on it to be sure nobody gets any positive credit no matter how much credit is due.
Anyway, welcome to A2K. (And you didn't know that Mrs. Bush went to New York because she usually doesn't issue a press release with pressure to print it, and the main media decided she wasn't as important to cover as those complaining about the way things were going.