Thank you, Boston Globe for editorial, "Bush's False Advertising."

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/advertising/articles/2004/06/02/bushs_false_advertising?mode=PF

June 2, 2004

MANY HAVE dubbed the Bush administration "data averse," in the sense that its powerful ideology blinds it to the facts. The Bush political wing also appears hostile to facts that don't fit its prevailing ideology, to wit: reelecting the president. Bush campaign advertisements in battleground states have so distorted John Kerry's record that the voters soon won't be able to know what to believe. It is time to flag these ads and call the foul.

A recent review of the ad campaigns of both Kerry and President Bush by The Washington Post found that the Bush campaign is outairing Kerry with negative ads by a margin of three to one. Fully 75 percent of Bush ads are negative. Some of the disparity may be explained by the number of independent groups that have been airing anti-Bush ads, allowing Kerry to float above the fray. But Kerry does not control the content, timing, or placement of those ads. The Bush campaign is solely responsible for its own words, and they have been, in a word, false.

This page has already reviewed Bush distortions of Kerry's record on gasoline taxes (he never voted to hike them by 50 cents) and military spending (unfairly selected from omnibus budgets). New ads claim that Kerry wants to repeal wiretaps and other surveillance under the USA Patriot Act. But according to the invaluable factcheck.org, Kerry's actual position "simply does not support what the Bush ad claims." Kerry is cosponsor with five Senate Republicans of a bill to tighten judicial oversight of the Patriot Act. Three of the Republicans are up for reelection this year. Will the Bush campaign run attack ads against them?

Largely in reaction to Bush senior's campaign in 1988, which featured lacerating ads against Michael Dukakis, many in the media launched "ad watches" in 1992 that analyzed the accuracy of campaign spots. The reviews had the (temporary) effect of cooling the false rhetoric as campaigns began appending footnotes and on-screen citings to bolster their claims. That effect has evidently worn off. The focus is worth reviving -- by television stations that can request documentation along with the ad buys, by voters who can demand backup information on campaign websites, and by news organizations that can expend more resources verifying the ads. That isn't censorship; it's citizenship. 

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Glad someone is making a statement on this, but it needs to reach a wider

audience.

[quispquake]

2. This morning on Democracy Now...

They said of the 49,000 ads Bush has run, over 75% have been negative, compared to 24% for Kerry...

This can't work! If you're the incumbent, don't you have to run on good stuff you've done? Or is America really that stupid???

Okay, don't answer that...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. You bring up a good point

Typically, incumbents don't run negative ads. This is because they have records to run on and defend. They point to the good things they've done so as to say "I did a good job, this is why I deserve to stay." This is largely because the American people do not react well to negative ads and can cause a backlash. Further, the challenger, by virtue of the fact that he has to prove the incumbent doesn't deserve another term in addition to proving his own merits, typically is forced to do at least 50% negative advertising.

Bush, on the other hand, doesn't bother with positive advertising. This is essentially admitting he hasn't done anything good for our country.

[displacedtexan]

6. The Bush* CREEP mantra (I fucked up, but let me fix it, not Kerry!)

What a campaign strategy! No wonder they "won" last time!

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

What kind of moron would support these freaks?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. This guy:

[chelsea0011]

3. And my 10 year old at the table today

He reports to me that he heard that this is the most negative campaign so far in any election. Now, I know he doesn't read the Globe because I was just reading the story myself, so I asked him where he had heard that. He says the news(not sure if local(Boston) or national) reported it. So what did the news report? He says it is negative overall, but the Globe says it is tilted in a negative way towards Bush. Even the news walks on shells about Bush when they can't even report exactly what the story conveyed.:crazy: :crazy: :wtf:

[NewHampshireDem]

5. NECN had a brief piece about it this morning ... eom

:)

[Killarney]

8. Nice going Globe! If only more would report on *'s lies.