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]>
Mon, 19 Oct 1992 12:36:14 EDT
text/plain (19 lines)
> I must say that the point isn't whether Americans are "guileless dunces".
> I think the whole point is that when the Bush campaign unethically and
> without consent tells the American people that Time-Warner supports the
> belief that Clinton cannot be trusted, it is wrong.  Whether I am a Bush or
> Clinton or Perot supporter, this is absolutely wrong.  I wouldn't stand for
> it, and I don't think the American people should stand for it.
Did TIME print a magazine with the cover tag "Why People Don't Trust Bill
Clinton" or not? Reproduction consent is a legal issue, not an ethical one.
TIME can argue they weren't asked about the spot, but they can't duck the
fact that they themselves promoted the question of trust, and that the Bush
ad reflects that fact. If Americans aren't guileless dunces, there's no need
to be up in arms about the ad--we will ignore the issue entirely. I do, and
it shows up at least three times an hour during NFL broadcasts. (Well, I'm
not ignoring the ad, just the message.)
M o R