SCREEN-L Archives

October 1992


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mark Bunster <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 20 Oct 1992 12:05:56 EDT
text/plain (22 lines)
> I think you are missing the point here. Whether Time printed a magazine with
> Bill Clinton or Howdy Doody doesn't give anyone the right to take this and
> misrepresent it to the American people. The first time I saw the ad, I was
> quite shocked that Time would be this politically one-sided. Does that make
> me a "guileless dunce?" I don't think so. I have followed this campaign
Without saying yes you are, I wonder how much attention you pay to what's
actually transpiring on the screen while you watch TV. What news organization
would run a political ad? Isn't it clear long before the TIME banner shows up
that it's a Bush propaganda piece? Don't you EXPECT political ads after
September? Again, this is legality, not ethics. Clinton discussed favorable
reviews from the Wall Street Journal last week, a paper which is hardly on
his side. Doesn't that make WSJ hopping mad, that now everybody thinks WSJ is
pro-Clinton? Shouldn't they sue for misrepresentation?
RJR telling us cigarettes are healthy is unethical presentation of product.
Displaying a news bible's cover while hammering away at the issues the story
discussed inside is fair game, as far as I can tell. Mostly I just can't
believe that anybody would think TIME put it out.
M o R