Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of deceiving the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.



--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a
camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's
"drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the
local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from
Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport
safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name
for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by
the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of deceiving
the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.

I guess the practice is OK as long as it's reported by a news source you've
been instructed not to like.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a
camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's
"drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the
local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from
Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport
safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name
for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by
the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of deceiving
the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.

I guess the practice is OK as long as it's reported by a news source you've
been instructed not to like.


I guess you missed the whole point.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a
camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad.
A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's
"drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets
for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the
local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report
from
Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport
safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name
for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by
the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of
deceiving
the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.

I guess the practice is OK as long as it's reported by a news source
you've
been instructed not to like.


I guess you missed the whole point.

Actually, we both did, but I did it with more style. :-)

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

I don't believe it is instruction so much as programming. Part of the
RepublBORG coding.

What?!? More left-wing name-calling? You guys just don't get it, huh?

"HarryKrause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote:


I don't believe it is instruction so much as programming. Part of the
RepublBORG coding.


What?!? More left-wing name-calling? You guys just don't get it, huh?

What namecalling?

"RepublBORG". With that feeble bit of name-calling, you attempted to
disparage decidedly more than half of the voters of the US.

Seems that I have quite a bit of name-calling to do if I wanted to catch up
to you... even if I were to call you a typical LIEberal. I'd still have a
few million left over, eh?

Jack Goff wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote:



I don't believe it is instruction so much as programming. Part of the
RepublBORG coding.


What?!? More left-wing name-calling? You guys just don't get it, huh?

What namecalling?


"RepublBORG". With that feeble bit of name-calling, you attempted to
disparage decidedly more than half of the voters of the US.

Seems that I have quite a bit of name-calling to do if I wanted to catch up
to you... even if I were to call you a typical LIEberal. I'd still have a
few million left over, eh?




YA know, I find it hard to take seriously any comment made by someone
with a handle Jack Goff. -- Sounds like more an adolescent learning new
words.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:47:36 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

You think RepubliBORG is disparaging? Why?

========================================

Because it implies thoughtless automated response or reaction. Is
that not disparaging? What about "Knee Jerk Liberal", is that not
disparaging in a similar way?

None of this is appropriate in a boating newsgroup however.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:33:23 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote:



I don't believe it is instruction so much as programming. Part of the
RepublBORG coding.


What?!? More left-wing name-calling? You guys just don't get it, huh?

What namecalling?


"RepublBORG". With that feeble bit of name-calling, you attempted to
disparage decidedly more than half of the voters of the US.

Seems that I have quite a bit of name-calling to do if I wanted to catch up
to you... even if I were to call you a typical LIEberal. I'd still have a
few million left over, eh?




YA know, I find it hard to take seriously any comment made by someone
with a handle Jack Goff. -- Sounds like more an adolescent learning new
words.

You really that hard up for ammunition, Jimcomma?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"HarryKrause" wrote:

I only agreed to refrain from calling any of the RepubliBORG who post
here names. You think RepubliBORG is disparaging? Why?

Read for content, Harry. I didn't say I thought it was disparaging, I said
"With that feeble bit of name-calling, you attempted to
disparage decidedly more than half of the voters of the US".

"Attempted to disparage". With your actions and reputation in this NG,
nothing you post here means much of anything. It was just your adolescent
attempt at name-calling.

Do you think it's not name-calling when *you* do it? Why?