SCREEN-L Archives

October 1992


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

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

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 20 Oct 1992 10:44:04 EDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (23 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
throughout, and have kept up with most of the facts.  And the fact here is,
the Bush campaign misrepresented Time's cover to make it seem that Time and
its parent company, Time-Warner, not only support the accusation that we can-
not trust Bill Clinton, but also that it endorses the Bush campaign.  I have
never seen this, and if you can find where Time did in fact endorse President
Bush, I will gladly take back what I said.
    And if it weren't such a big deal, then Time-Warner would have sat back
and smiled at the millions of dollars of free advertising it recieved.  It is
a big deal to them, and it is a big deal to me.  I support Clinton, I trust
Clinton, and I believe, no matter what low methods the Bush campaign does in
THIS election(The gov't silencing the man who supposedly sold pot to Dan
Quayle), Clinton will be the next President.  Hail to the Chief!!
Think about it.
Dan O'Neil