Skip to comments.Today Show Uses 9/11 Relatives to Flog Bush Campaign over Use of WTC Images
Posted on 03/05/2004 4:40:28 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
For a second day, The Today Show continued its assault on the Bush campaign for its use of fleeting images of the WTC on 9/11 in its current round of campaign ads.
To be fair and accurate, I must say that Katie Couric's words themselves were not nearly so provocative or accusatory as those of the guests she chose to bring on.
The three guests, three women, were relatives of people who had died in the WTC.
One was a seethingly angry, partisan, Bush-hater. How's this for a formulation: "President Bush has only agreed to come before the 9/11 Commission for one hour. That's 2 seconds for every life that was lost."
The same woman said that she was frustrated with the Bush administration and "fighting to get the President to come before commission given that 3,000 people were murdered on his watch." Then, apparently a devotee of the Howard Dean/Cynthia McKinney school of history, she stated "the Bush administration did nothing to stop it despite all warnings they had and did nothing to mitigate things on the day of the attack."
Katie tipped her hand with this little Freudian slip. She referred to the Bush "ad blitz," then tried to recover, saying "uh, ad campaign, I should call it." She mentioned that some relatives were upset, but then addressed the one pro-Bush guest, saying: "I understand you're fine with it, you don't think it was inappropriate?"
The woman stated: "Prior to 9/11 we reacted to attacks very minimally and I appreciated the leadership of Pres. Bush. He realized it wasn't merely a crime but [part of a war.]
A second guest, who was clearly anti-Bush but not as virulent as the first guest said: "I don't think images of death and destruction on 9/11 should be used for political gain. The issues yes, but not the images."
To Katie's credit, she did ask "would you feel the same way if Kerry used them?" The woman claimed that she would, "asolutely."
Then it was back to the vituperative guest. "They were nice warm fuzzy ads, with nice music, but that's not my reality of 9/11. We need to examine Bush's actions on 9/11. On 9/11, he was in a classroom listening to children reading to him. He has stonewalled the 9/11 commission. The time, money and energy used to produce the ads should be used to cooperate with commission."
Giving Katie her due, she made the following statement:
"It's really hard to discuss the state of the country without mentioning a seminal event in our lives, the biggest news event in our lives - I know it wasn't a news event for you. It's Hard to totally stay away from it, isn't it?"
The Bush-supporting guest opined "I think the ads were done tastefully." News agencies use the ads all the time.
Guest #2 stated that "it's OK to use footage for news piece or historical retrospective. But not for political gain."
Katie concluded by stating that "I'm sure the controversty will continue." Which if Katie has anything to do with it, it certainly will.
Katie by her tone and words was actually quite reasonable. But query her motivation in presenting this as the show's lead segment and choosing such a blatantly partisan guest to launch such an assault on the President.
I understand the sentiment, but the fact is that millions of people continue to watch. Although GMA has passed it in certain markets, Today has the biggest national audience of any morning news show. Like it or not, Today remains an important opinion-maker for many Americans. As such, I believe it is worthwhile to keep track of it.
I certainly respect someone's decision not to watch Today, but the fact remains that millions of Americans do.
Exactly. Although I think even Katie was a bit taken aback by the sheer rage of the one woman. Even the Kerry campaign gurus who were watching must have been worried that at a certain point her over-the-top accusations were becoming counter-productive.
Let's Roll! - President Bush has.Some never would.
I thought it was Kerry and the other Dems who were the elitists? The people who watch Today are a fair cross-sample of America. I don't see the point in pretending the show or the people who watch it are irrelevant.
She is involved with this group.
She didn't like Bush using the the WTC for ads, she wanted to know why he did not co-operate with the WTC commission. She wanted to know what he knew before 9/11. The person interviewing her said that Guliani was supporting the ads. She said that Guliani has not talked to the commission nd wanted know what he knew before 9/11.
She said that Bush was not protecting the country on on "9/11 he was in some school room" instead.
I found all sorts of stuff on her on google. She seems to be a bitter and angry woman. I feel sorry for her loss but Bush did not kill her husband. But she acts that way.
Glad you mentioned that. In yesterday's thread on Katie's first attack on W for use of 9/11 in the ads, I made a point along similar lines:
"Remember that when John Kerry starts running ads highlighting his service in Vietnam, where 58,000 US soliders and millions of civilians died. Will Katie be questioning Kerry's decency and good taste in "exploiting" those images?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.