No. of Recommendations: 11
BBC Headline reads: "What's in controversial Reagan advert and is it what he really said?"
One reads the story to find out the Reagan Foundation is lying when it says the ads misrepresent what Reagan conveyed in his speech. Why would the Reagan Foundation lie?
Why doesn't the headline of the BBC story reflect the conclusion of the article; "Canada Ad Accurately Conveys Reagan Message About Tariffs."
Canada fairly represented what Reagan said. Yes, the edited to make the message more suitable for a short ad format, but as to the Reagans meaning and intent...Canada nailed it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyz1e201r8o
No. of Recommendations: 15
CNN displayed more courage than the BBC... if BBC's issue was lack of journalistic fortitude.
CNN Headline: "What the Ronald Reagan ad that got Trump so angry was really all about"
The CNN article didn't beat around the bush. CNN quickly covered 4 of the 5 Ws -who what when where -
" President Donald Trump has canceled trade negotiations with Canada over what he called a “fake” ad that featured parts of an anti-tariff speech delivered by conservative hero and former President Ronald Reagan. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute also said the ad misrepresented the former president’s words.
It wasn’t fake. It was edited. But Reagan really did spend a five-minute speech — an April 25, 1987, national radio address that the Reagan Library has published on YouTube — railing against tariffs. It was a full-throated expression of support for free and fair trade.
On the 5th W -why- they punted " It’s not clear why Trump called the ad “fake,”
WHY?
It's because he's a shrewd liar whose cult gobbles his bullshit as fast as it spews forth from his 10k gold-plated crapper.
He knows it's Grade A zone-flooding shit...but it's netting him a $300,000,000 million dollar jet upgraded with $750,000,000 taxpayer dollars for 4 years of hobnobbing with people way above the social station of a mediocre developer who married a soft porn model and used TV to effect a con like nobody has ever seen. .
No. of Recommendations: 1
effect// affect. use the danged preview feature, dimwit.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Canada fairly represented what Reagan said. Yes, the edited to make the message more suitable for a short ad format, but as to the Reagans meaning and intent...Canada nailed it.
Keep in mind, it was the 80s. Saint Reagan was in the thrall of Milton Friedman, who advocated zero tariffs and offshoring everything, so the people who still had jobs and money, could buy the stuff they wanted cheaper.
Of course, Reagan was a hypocrite. He imposed "voluntary import restraints" on Japanese automakers to protect the big three, and he imposed a protectionist tariff on imported motorcycles, because his buddy Malcolm Forbes liked Harleys. And what were the reactions of the foreign companies? Honda, Nissan, and Toyota started building factories in the US. iirc, the Honda plant in Marysville started out building bikes. Now, it is a major operation, employing over 4000 people. While visiting my aunt, in Columbus, I opened the newspaper to see a big ad "support the Ohio economy, buy a Honda".
In principle, I have no problem motivating domestic production of goods. The problem is the precipitate way his nibs is doing it. The abrupt way tariffs are being imposed, far faster than manufacturers can adjust to, makes clear the objective is shifting the tax burden from "JCs" to Proles.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
>>On the 5th W -why- they punted " It’s not clear why Trump called the ad “fake,”<<
WHY?
It's because he's a shrewd liar whose cult gobbles his bullshit as fast as it spews forth from his 10k gold-plated crapper.
Because anything that run counter to his nibs' narrative is, by his definition, "fake".
Steve
