Bullock Texas State History Museum
Chronicle Not Only Soft on Bush but Duped
RECEIVED Mon., Dec. 29, 2003
Dear Editor,
austinchronicle.com/gbase/Community/Postmarks?StartTime=2003-12-05, www.georgewbush.com/GetActive/WriteNewspapers.aspx?aid=102.
Above are links to a talking points (propaganda) page from George Bush's re-election Web site and a letter printed by the Chronicle.
As you can see, the letter written by Debra Urias ["Postmarks" online, Dec. 5] and the content from the re-election page are identical.
So not only did you guys endorse Bush by running fluff piece after fluff piece after fluff piece back in 2000, but this time around you are printing right-wing propaganda straight from Bush's re-election Web site.
Just so you're straight (Nick) – I am not complaining about the content of a letter to the editor.
The issue at hand is political propaganda straight from a candidate's Web site winding up on editorial pages disguised as coming from the people.
It's another slimy way Republicans run their campaigns.
And the fact it's lost on you two suggests you really should be in another profession.
Nick – as for the "get a memory" comment and Louis' "lack of memory" excuse – you need only research what you ran right up to your pathetic one-line endorsement of Al Gore and Ralph Nader (dual endorsements for president??) as contrasted by all the ridiculous crap you printed on Bush.
By the way – you guys were busted on this by two very prominent Web sites (MSNBC.com and TalkingPointsMemo.com). They actually used you as an example of editors and publishers being used as pawns to further political agendas.
Go back to sleep guys – we'll wake you when the election's over.
austinchronicle.com/gbase/Community/Postmarks?StartTime=2003-12-05, www.georgewbush.com/GetActive/WriteNewspapers.aspx?aid=102.
Above are links to a talking points (propaganda) page from George Bush's re-election Web site and a letter printed by the Chronicle.
As you can see, the letter written by Debra Urias ["Postmarks" online, Dec. 5] and the content from the re-election page are identical.
So not only did you guys endorse Bush by running fluff piece after fluff piece after fluff piece back in 2000, but this time around you are printing right-wing propaganda straight from Bush's re-election Web site.
Just so you're straight (Nick) – I am not complaining about the content of a letter to the editor.
The issue at hand is political propaganda straight from a candidate's Web site winding up on editorial pages disguised as coming from the people.
It's another slimy way Republicans run their campaigns.
And the fact it's lost on you two suggests you really should be in another profession.
Nick – as for the "get a memory" comment and Louis' "lack of memory" excuse – you need only research what you ran right up to your pathetic one-line endorsement of Al Gore and Ralph Nader (dual endorsements for president??) as contrasted by all the ridiculous crap you printed on Bush.
By the way – you guys were busted on this by two very prominent Web sites (MSNBC.com and TalkingPointsMemo.com). They actually used you as an example of editors and publishers being used as pawns to further political agendas.
Go back to sleep guys – we'll wake you when the election's over.
Richard Harvey
[Editor's response: We knew the letter was canned, though we didn't know the source. We thought it was so outrageously dishonest and overtly political that we'd go with it, figuring it would outrage some readers. Sometimes we print canned letters, sometimes we don't. Very rarely will we go with them if they are in harmony with ongoing Chronicle positions; we're more likely to if they state an opposing view. We trust our readers. On the other hand, you've promised to let us sleep until after the election, and we're going to trust you on that one.]
