It is a smart thing to do. Doesn't really matter if he is really concerened or not, the publicity can only be good.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Don't you know? There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
You mean GOOD publicity?
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Isn't that what I said? There's no such thing as bad publicity. Therefore, all publicity is good publicity. Sheeeesh ...
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
No, there is no such thing as good publicity. Everything is about the bad.
Why do you think the media was obsessed on whether or not Clinton got a quickie?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Perhaps because if he had, he had commited perjury, and thus had broken the law? YA THINK?
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
You know, I love it how the Republicans keep bitching about the Impeachment. I mean, c'mon, you did a piss-poor job of presenting your case, you lost, "innocent until proven guilty" and all that (oh, wait -- I'm a bleeding heart liberal, real Americans don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", in fact, they want to kill all the lawyers), so get over it, or get a fucking life. One of the two. Either way, you lost, stop being sore losers. Jesus Fucking Christ.
[ July 30, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Doesn't matter.
Like I said, and thanks for backing me up, there is no such thing as good publicity.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
No, you're still wrong.
All publicity is good publicity, even if it's something bad that's being reported. One would think that the President of the U.S. of A. being impeached for an alleged sexual affair would be a bad thing, but it boosted Clinton's ratings through the roof, so it was good publicity.
Except, of course, for those who are still going apeshit about it ... ::yeesh::
[ July 30, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Clinton was only lucky that public opinion turned in his favour. Had the Republicans weren't so overzealous for their thirst for blood, then things would have turned out quite differently.
The Publicity was still bad.
The Republicans did not capture the opportunity to make it worse.
Clinton managed to turn things around nicely in his favour.
Most things the media report about is bad, and can usually hurt a person's credibility and pride if said person does not react properly to bad stuff. Clinton did an excellent job in doing so. Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich wasn't so lucky.
Posted by Jeff The Card (Member # 411) on :
Tahna,
There is no such thing as bad publicity. It doesn't exist.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Jeff, you're an idiot. Tahna implied a falsehood, and I called him on it. What does that have to do with whether Clinton was convicted of his crimes or not?
As a secondary point, repeating the same tired cliche does nothing to prove it. Make an argument or shut up.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Please masterbate each other in the Flameboard only.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The media was interested in Clinton because it was a scandal, and people would watch/read about it.
And there are such things as both good and bad publicity.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It's masturbate, Simon. I'd expect better from someone who is a common practitioner. What's next, mispelling "breathe"?
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
This discussion is about publicity. It is NOT about Clinton's impeachment. Frankly, I consider that matter to be water under the bridge. Point is, Clinton was involved in an incident that could have cost him his presidency. Bad press was circulated. Republicans try to shoot them down. Republicans lose. Clinton gets away with hardly a scratch and looking better than before. And Omega backed up my point.
In short, it was bad publicity, but Clinton turned it around in his favour. Besides, how often do you read about anything good about anyone anyways? I mean, you have a politician involved in another intern's dissappearance, you have a movie star constantly going back and forth in rehab, etc. etc.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I think the confusion here is over the term bad publicity.
Tahan's taking it to mean that someone has had bad news reported about them. The POV Jeff is taking is the one that assumes that even if bad news is being reported about someone, they are still being reported about, which means they are talked about, which means people are thinking about them. It tends to differ depending on how "in vogue" they are at that time. If Jennifer Aniston was reported to have taken Heroin and murdered a goat, for instance, it would be bad. If Greg Evigan, OTOH, announced that he had slept with a married man at Disney World, it could do wonders for his career.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Tell ya what... You elect me Dictator, and I'll do the Henry V thing every couple of months or so. It could be useful.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Bored now.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh yeah? Well, you're a big stupid head!
And Canadian!
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Look, if he was at least French, I could understand that ... but he's British!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Liam is, yes. But, since Simon was talking to Tom, you're rather wrong.