Campaign Ads Are Under Fire for Inaccuracy

[John_H]

"WASHINGTON, May 24 — A record year for political advertising has brought with it a hail of televised exaggerations, omissions and mischaracterizations that pollsters say seem to be leaving voters with mistaken impressions of Senator John Kerry and President Bush.

The degree to which the advertisements push the facts, or go beyond them, varies by commercial. While Mr. Bush's campaign has been singled out as going particularly far with some of its claims, Mr. Kerry's campaign has also been criticized as frequently going beyond the bounds of truth..."


Yet another instance of the whore's twisted concept of "fairness:" All negative stories about Chimp must also contain negative info about Kerry.


--Kerry's 100% factual, if exagerated, ads are treated the same as Chimp's bald faced lies. In the world of the NY times, apparently, saying you cast the decisive vote in a one-vote-margin senate vote (which any senator can accurately claim)is identical to saying your opponent has a plan to raise taxes when he has no such plan.

-- Since Rutenberg chose three of the many Chimp lie ads and could only find two questionable Kerry ads, he has to bring in the League of Conservation Voters' ad about offshore drilling, complaining that although the ad is 100% true, Chimp let them drill farther out than Clinton wanted them to. Clinton? Duh.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/campaign/25ADS.html?hp

[noonwitch]

1. Considering I have yet to see a Kerry ad that trashes Bush

But all the Bush ads I've seen trash Kerry, I'd say that the problem here is the Bush campaign. It's worse to use a lie to savage someone else than to "exagerrate" (although I don't know what they mean by Kerry exagerrating, because I haven't seen it) a truth to boost one's own cause.

[Snoggera]

2. All words for lies

exaggerations, omissions and mischaracterizations

and everyone with half a brain knows who is the liar.