BostonGlobe did it again.

[Mass]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/19/kerry_urges_cooperation_to_reduce_abortions/

Once again, the Boston Globe is trying to provoke a tempest where there is nothing, with this reporting on Kerry's speech focusing only on abortion and trying to somehow say he changed his mind.

Never mind that his position is the SAME as NARAL. F*ck the Boston Globe.

[beachmom]

1. This paragraph made me so mad, it's SO untrue

The speech is Kerry's most extensive attempt to describe his religious views and define where he stands on so-called ``values issues" since President Bush defeated him for the presidency in 2004. Bush and the Republican Party used abortion, gay marriage, and other controversial social issues to motivate conservative voters to the polls against Kerry.




ATTEMPT????? The use of that word shows COMPLETE doubt in Kerry's sincerity. It is a biased word that will immediately create the reader to think -- oh, it's just politics, and Kerry's such a phony.

One word, guys. One word that is just unbelievably unfair. Meanwhile, EVERYONE gives Bush the benefit of the doubt even when he so cynically uses religion and Jesus just to placate his base while he continues to commit evil acts like torture.

I really think the Boston Globe is the WORST newspaper for John Kerry -- worse than the RW rags, because they're supposedly "liberal", so people will believe it.


The abortion stuff is not news really. Kerry has said things in the past, Hillary has, too, and the Democratic Party in general have talked like that before. He is pro-choice, and supported abortion rights BEFORE Roe in his 1972 campaign. There has been no change. And, I agree with him on the rhetoric -- the pro-choice organizations have made mistakes and they SHOULD be called on them.

[TayTay]

2. Hold on a minute here, this is not a bad article

I have seen the Boston Globe have very questionable coverage of Sen. Kerry on quite a few occasions and this is not one of them. This is actually a very fair article that seems to have actually listened to what the Senator said and reported on it. (The front page story that Sen. Kerry was against Gay Marriage in Mass that ran in April of '05 was a hit piece. This was not.)

First of all, my paper copy of the Boston Globe had this story on the front page of the newspaper, just under the fold. This is the first time that Sen. Kerry has had column inches on the front page of the Globe in a long while. (He did have a picture on the front page after the April 22nd speech, but the text of the story was inside the paper.)

The word 'attempt' seems to refer not to the personal beliefs of the Senator but to his ability to communicate those beliefs to an audience. They were not questioning his beliefs, they were questioning his ability to get an audience and the news media to hear those beliefs, that is a significant difference and one that is appropriate to a media discussion of a political speech.

The Boston Globe was impressed with this speech, you can just tell. (There was a lot of local news yesterday. A former Governor of the Commonwealth died, there is a big primary today with a heavily contested Democratic race for Governor and a contested race for Lt. Gov.) A speech made by someone not running in today's elections and made way out in California got front page coverage. Ahm, that is not nothing.

I thought the story was fair considering how incredibly difficult it is for the media to cover anything that has to do with personal religious or spiritual beliefs. Rick Klein got most of this right and was very fair to Senator Kerry and actually sought to report factually and without snark on what Kerry was trying to get across.

This story is not a hit piece. And the Globe did Sen. Kerry a favor by front-paging it and assigning a reporter to cover it and not just take it off the wire services. I am quite pleased swith the coverage. The Globe story went out of it's way to say that this speech was personal and intimate, words tht the Globe, ah, doesn't wear out when describing Sen. Kerry. I am impressed with their coverage on this, very impressed.

[Mass]

3. I disagree. the part on abortion is for me reminiscent of the part

on same sex marriage last year. It is the major part of the paper and the title when it is a non-story. Kerry had the same position for years. And NARAL's position is relegated at the end of the article. In addition, they imply he is following Hillary's lead on that (and therefore that he is pandering to the right).

If I had read this article without having read the speech, I would be ranting at Kerry's need to pander to the christian lobby.

[beachmom]

4. Paper can sometimes soften things, especially if it made it on

the front page. It's just -- if you look at the thread on the speech here -- it falls well short of how we interpreted it. I'll trust your judgment on it, from a BG/Mass. POV. I'm just saying it didn't tell the story that I saw, having read the speech unfiltered.

[Mass]

5. Seems I was right. Can somebody answer to Tesha. I cant

answer coherently.

This is exactly what I meant. The Boston Globe insists on Kerry bashing pro-choice activists (which he did not really do, but do not talk really about what he proposes). Tesha is a strident anti-Kerry, but other people who are just strong pro-choice advocates will react exactly the same way.

[TayTay]

6. Who is Tesho and where did they post.

The Boston Globe said this in their article:

Like Clinton's, Kerry's speech changed the emphasis on his position. At Pepperdine, Kerry endorsed new tax credits for adoptions, expanded federal childcare programs, universal health insurance, and a higher minimum wage to raise poor women's standard of living -- nothing that conflicts with Kerry's previous public statements on abortion.

Still, the speech was striking for a senator who has high marks from NARAL Pro-Choice America, a group that considers him committed to protecting abortion rights. Gary Bauer, president of the conservative American Values organization, said Kerry appears to be pandering to moderates after Bush and the Republicans lampooned him as an out-of-touch liberal. Bauer said Kerry's speech calling for fewer abortions is hard to take at face value, since in the Senate he opposed proposals designed to make abortions more difficult to obtain.

snip

But Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, noted that Kerry's record speaks for itself. ``As someone who consistently supported a woman's right to choose and has the voting record to prove it, Senator Kerry is acknowledging what NARAL Pro-Choice America has been saying for years: This decision is a personal one between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God," Keenan said.

Besides the abortion issue, Kerry traced his religious journey.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/19/kerry_urges_cooperation_to_reduce_abortions/?page=2

There are people who can't read and will misinterpret what the Globe wrote. They are working off of their own agenda and I don't think this is the Globe's fault in this instance. This is one of the more thoughtful pieces the Globe has run on Kerry and it was fair and insightful. (Something I would have very rarely said about coverage of John Kerry by any Boston media in the past.)

[Mass]

7. We have to disagree on that.

I know that, if I had not read the speech, I would have real issues with the article. I am sure I am not the only one.

[karynnj]

8. She was irrational before the speech

I agree with Tay Tay. Even looking at the abortion part - it's clear Kerry has always been for keeping Roe vs Wade, but he personally sees abortion as something to avoid. During the election and afterwards there were very strident pro-choice people attacking him, Hillary and anyone else who treated abortion as something different than a medical procedure. These people HURT their own cause and in reality are half the people Kerry may be speaking of when he speaks about the rhetoric on this. I wouldn't use the word bashing - a desire to drop rhetoric and find common ground can never be done by bashing.

I went to college in the 60s and 70s in Indiana at a time when abortion was illegal. The illegality didn't stop abortions - it did make them for dangerous. That background is why abortion was legalized in the first place.

As to the rest of the content - deep religious ideas rarely make the front page of the paper. Abortion is a trigger issue and comments on it are newsworthy. What should be interesting is to see if this is covered at all by Christian newspapers or magazines, especially Catholic ones. It would be very interesting to see how and if it is covered by Catholic papers.

[TayTay]

9. Ah, who led the filibuster against Samuel Alito

and why? Excuse me, but when did truth not become a compelling argument for Democrats.

No one else in the United States Senate stood up and called for a filibuster of this nominee on grounds that included Alito's stance against Roe v. Wade.

Anyone who thinks Kerry has changed his position should rifle through some of the posts on this forum and across the liberal blogosphere and remind themselves of what happened in late January of this year.

Gawd, how can people forget that so quickly. John Kerry did that, not anyone else. He stood up and did what he promised me, as a Massachusetts voter, that he would act to preserve Reproductive Rights for women. And he did.

Stupid people invent excuses for what they believe that have little or nothing to do with facts. that doesn't make them right or irrefutable. It merely reinforces the perception that they are stupid and refuse to allow facts to enter into their talks. You can't outlaw stupidity in people, and in some cases it's rather easy to point out the hypocrisy of what they are saying.

[karynnj]

10. I saw your and mass's posts and added one

She doesn't see that surest way to lose it is for the opposition to portray in a stident non-attractive way.