SCREEN-L Archives

October 1992

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
"(Melinda M Hale)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Oct 1992 10:04:30 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
>
> 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.
>
 
This is really the point, that the Bush campaign has used a testimonial
from Time-Warner without actually involving Time-Warner.  The ad is
entirely misleading -- the first time I saw it, I couldn't tell if it was
an ad for Bush or for Time.  I noticed last night the *quickly* flashing
"paid for" disclaimer, which I would have missed had I not read these
postings about the ad.  Was this there originally?  I don't remember it.
 
Does anyone know if this is news beyond the net?  It should be.  It *is*
wrong, and ought to be a "last straw" for the American public to stop
allowing Bush to pull the wool over their eyes.
 
Melinda Hale
Boston

ATOM RSS1 RSS2