[The_Victor]

Two out of probably 30,000 close friends and immediate family members and Reuters claims that "Sept 11 Families Disgusted".

"I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush."

This quote says it all. It should be followed by "But since Saddam isn't running, I'll vote for the next best candidate, John F'n Kerry."

[mystery-ak]

Tell me, Mr and Mrs Doyle, did you accept money from the government as compensation for your son's death?.....

[theDentist]

Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri,... said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush."

OK. Fine. He lost a son and he has a right to blame the US along with the terrorists. But here's a perfect example of why it's best to never talk with the Press when you are upset. When you are emotionally distraught you will always say something thoughtless and stupid. And the press will print it with glee.

[Skooz]

"Families are enraged," said Bill Doyle,

No, they're not, Bill.

The press actually wants us to think all the families are outraged over this. As soon as they heard about the ads, they started scrounging for some family member who would say what they wanted. All they have to show for their efforts is this schmuck.

This will be a long seven months.

[Ichneumon]

"Families are enraged," said Bill Doyle, 57, of New York, who is active in several Sept. 11 family groups. "What I think is distasteful is that the president is trying to use 9/11 as a springboard for his re-election."

But hey, it's *perfectly* okay for these handful of people to leverage their 9/11 victimhood into nationally-syndicated political attacks against Bush and for Kerry, right?

Flaming hypocrites.

[VOA]

Families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks voiced outrage on
Thursday at President Bush's first ads of his re-election campaign that use
images of the devastated World Trade Center to portray him as the right leader
for tumultuous times.

"Forgotten what?"
-- what this band of folks would say when hearing the "Have You Forgotten" song...

[an amused spectator]

"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the president would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters," the union's general president, Harold Schaitberger, said.

I'll bet that Schaitberger is a fat union slug who was nowhere near either Ground Zero on September 11, 2001.

[jimbo123]

Reuters writer here:

mark.egan.reuters.com@reuters.net

+1 646-223-6190,
fax +1 646-223-6289)

[skeeter]

Perfect example of how the press intends to help elect a Democrat this year.

The democrats couldn't wipe their own arse without the news media on hand to do it for them.

[Congressman Billybob]

Now let's see what we have. A pair of people, out of perhaps 6,000 family members of people who were killed on 9/11 have claimed it is wrong for President Bush to mention that subject. There are many more family members of soldiers who have been killed or injured in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. If two of those object, should Bush not make any mention of what hs has done as Commander in Chief of the war there and elsewhere?

Heck, let's not just stop there. If two recipients of Social Security think it's wrong for Bush to make any reference to SS, should that be off limits, too? Under the idea that the US Constitution contains a clause that guarantees the "freedom not to be offended," ANY subject that ANY two people object to, should be off limits for President Bush's campaign and its commercials.

Should Bush start appearing in public with a piece of duct tape across his mouth, regardless of where he is, what the audience is, and what subject they want him to talk about?

In short, this is an exceptionally stupid article, that was written by a reporter who is incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, much less the ability of seeing any fact IN CONTEXT. And BTW, the editor on this piece had to be "a maroon" also, not to notice the gaping holes in this story as written.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[BibChr]

Reuters.

If Reuters reported that I was a man, I'd have to double check. I hate that propaganda mill.

I guess "some" isn't in their style book.

Contemptible morons.

Dan

[Dr. Frank fan]

"Sept. 11 Families", huh? All of them? Apparently. They couldn't find a single example of someone who belongs to a "Sept. 11 Family" who holds a contrary view. Right? Oh wait, they do find one token counterexample, at the end of the article. But for some reason it's not deemed important to clarify the headline.

Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri, said he was disgusted when he saw the ads.

How are these people seeing the ads? Are they even on TV yet? Is this a case where the reporter drives up to their house, "can I show you Bush's latest ad?", and then puts a mike in their face to get a reaction? I just have a hard time believing this is some kind of spontaneous reaction. The ads were just announced!

Willett, who lost his 29-year-old son, John Charles, when planes hit the trade center, said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) before I would vote for Bush."

Well, now we know how much weight to attach to his opinion.

Two can play this game: Let's take this quote from Mr. Willett and show it to a bunch of Iraqians with family members killed by Hussein (not killed "on his watch" but killed by him), and see how *they* react.

"I think it is an atrocity," his wife, Lucy, added. "He should not be allowed to use those images at all."

Now a political paid advertisement is an "atrocity". Good to keep things in perspective isn't it? Meanwhile just a few days ago some 240+ people were blown up while attending a religious celebration. But this TV AD is an "atrocity"!

...victims said they hope Bush does not make it worse by speaking at the site now known as Ground Zero, which many view as sacred.

Ok, this may not be a popular opinion, but 'sacred'? That's going too far. Are we going to build a religion around 9/11 now?

There's no objective reason on earth why the sitting President at the time of a major violent event should be somehow forbidden to speak at the site of those deaths. In fact, all other things being equal, one would expect nothing less. (Where, I wonder, was the "Gettysburg Address" delivered?)

"I don't have a problem with his pointing to his leadership at that time. He helped us weather it. To me it was a tasteful ad," said Patricia Reilly, who sister Lorraine Lee died in the New York attacks.

Ok, so some people have one opinion about the ads, others have the opposite opinion. FASCINATING NEWS FLASH! Film at 11.

---

I don't know why but these almost-ridiculously-biased news articles tend to really get to me lately. It's just that they're so transparent and I start to see the same pattern repeated over and over. In fact they're so easy to do, you could write one yourself, on any issue, pushing any opinion you want:

1. Interview a few people (go to a mall, or call them up, whatever) of some Important Subgroup X (X = blacks, 9/11 families, whatever) until you get three opinions on each side of the issue: at least 3 who hold opinion A, and at least 3 who hold opinion B. (Typically you should be able to do this rather easily, interviewing no more than at most 10 people.)

2. If you, personally, agree with A, here's your headline: "[Group X] believes [A]". Of course, if you, personally, agree with B, you can just go ahead and write the opposite headline: "[Group X] believes [B]". It's entirely up to you, because now that you've got the requisite 3 opinions on each side, each headline is equally valid.

3. First sentence: "[Members of Group X] are increasingly voicing their belief that [A or B]." Give a little context setting up the issue, spinning it in your side's favor as much as possible.

4. Supporting quotes: "For example, [person 1] says: 'I believe [A or B]'." Repeat at least twice, or as needed.

5. Finally, the token opposite view goes at the very end: "Not all [members of Group X] believe [A or B], however. Token person says, 'I believe [B or A].'" (Pick the token opposite-view-holder who gave you the weakest quote in step 1.)

This is how every such article goes. It's just so easy to write.

And you can do it from either point of view of any given issue. So what this kind of article really is, is little more than a stealth editorial from its author. For example, this article can be summarized in one sentence, as follows:

"Reuters reporter Mark Egan is disgusted by Bush campaign ads."

and that's news.

[AmishDude]

PUSH, STEPHEN PETER GREAT FALLS, VA 22066 GENZYME CORPORATION MARKEY, EDWARD JOHN VIA MARKEY FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE 03/17/1998 500.00 98032933889

---

SCHAITBERGER, HAROLD WASHINGTON, DC 20006 BOXER, BARBARA VIA FRIENDS OF BARBARA BOXER 07/29/2003 1000.00 23020451739

---

SCHAITBERGER, HAROLD A STEVENSVILLE, MD 21666 RETIRED INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS INTERESTED IN REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION PAC 07/12/1997 300.00 97032351790

---

SCHAITBERGER, HAROLD A MR. WASHINGTON, DC 20006 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CARSON, BRAD VIA BRAD CARSON FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE 05/01/2003 500.00 24990148651

[dougherty]

Those who are complaining the loudest are probably card-carrying Democraps. What happened on 9-11 was a major event in Dubya's presidency and for the whole country. I don't have a problem with the ads at all.

[skeeter]

If you think this is bad, just wait until the Bush campaign (very justifiably) brings up Kerry's anti-war activities & many, many anti military votes. Or even Sen Kerry's attendance record.

The howling from the fifth column will be epic.

[BlueNgold]

At least they bothered to include one pro-Bush quote. Not exactly balanced, but certainly better than Commie Katie.

[RightOnline]

Oh, tell these pissant little whiners to clam up. Sheesh. The events of 9/11 were the defining point in Bush's presidency, and few can dispute that he stepped up to the plate afterward.

Fercryinoutloud. Everyone is SOOOOOOOOOOO quick to be offended in this freakin' country any more. Nation of wimps, I swear.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri, said he was disgusted when he saw the ads. Willett, who lost his 29-year-old son, John Charles, when planes hit the trade center, said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) before I would vote for Bush." "I think it is an atrocity," his wife, Lucy, added. "He should not be allowed to use those images at all.""

What ridiculous twaddle...MUD

[Helms]

[TC Rider]

Is it any surprise that the press would run to the 9/11 activists first for comment?

[smiley]

Hold on here.....depends on which news station you're watching...I've heard callers from New York say that they were very glad that President Bush had the 9/11 references in his campaign ads...their opinion was that President Bush was there for them during and after 9/11 and the other Presidential candidates were not.

Dems are stirring up mud again.