Thursday, November 02, 2006
Open letter to NY Times reporter Kate Zernicke
I have a few questions regarding your article on the fallout over the Kerry "stuck in Iraq" gaffe.
1.) Why should it take 18 paragraphs to actually learn what Kerry said?
2.) Why should we have to learn what Gun Toting Liberal thinks about Kerry before learning what it was that Kerry said?
3.) Why do you choose to quote what Kerry WISHES he said, rather than what he actually said? Does the advertising/marketing department at the New York Times charge a premium for that kind of writing?
I'm in PR. Just curious. I didn't know the Times offered that service.
3.) You indirectly Kerry as saying "just ask President Bush." What is your source?
4.) You quote Kerry as saying he never meant to say anything negative about troops. But his Winter Soldier testimony is well known - as is his quote on Meet the Press saying US troops are "terrorizing women and children" "in the dead of night."
Is this not contextualizing? How did you miss this? Kerry has a long history of wrongly implying negative things about US troops. Indeed, he made his public name by doing just that. Is this not relevant background information? Certainly at least as relevant as the words of an obscure blogger at Gun Toting Liberal, no?
Any comments?
Best,
Jason Van Steenwyk
1.) Why should it take 18 paragraphs to actually learn what Kerry said?
2.) Why should we have to learn what Gun Toting Liberal thinks about Kerry before learning what it was that Kerry said?
3.) Why do you choose to quote what Kerry WISHES he said, rather than what he actually said? Does the advertising/marketing department at the New York Times charge a premium for that kind of writing?
I'm in PR. Just curious. I didn't know the Times offered that service.
3.) You indirectly Kerry as saying "just ask President Bush." What is your source?
4.) You quote Kerry as saying he never meant to say anything negative about troops. But his Winter Soldier testimony is well known - as is his quote on Meet the Press saying US troops are "terrorizing women and children" "in the dead of night."
Is this not contextualizing? How did you miss this? Kerry has a long history of wrongly implying negative things about US troops. Indeed, he made his public name by doing just that. Is this not relevant background information? Certainly at least as relevant as the words of an obscure blogger at Gun Toting Liberal, no?
Any comments?
Best,
Jason Van Steenwyk
Comments:
Post a Comment
