[link|http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus_ad.html|MoveOn.org]:

Was the language inflammatory?

The language of the ad was intended to be both hard-hitting and catchy. The truth about the mainstream media is that the kind of analyses with which some of us feel more comfortable don\ufffdt generate enough attention or news coverage to shift the debate.

Phrases like \ufffdGeneral Betray Us\ufffd are \ufffdsticky\ufffd\ufffdthat is, they get repeated again and again in the media\ufffdbecause they are so memorable. It was precisely because this ad was controversial and the language in it was \ufffdsticky\ufffd that the allegations at its core were widely discussed.

Moreover, every word of the ad was entirely accurate\ufffdthe General has in fact cooked the books, and in doing so, he betrayed the public trust.


The link has a link to a YouTube clip of Eli Pariser on HardBall discussing the ad (for those interested - I haven't seen it).

I take their comments at face value - because it's the simplest explanation; I guess you don't. Oh well.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who can't resist beating a dead horse sometimes...)