Friday, April 29, 2005
NY Times: Editorials and The News
Via Mudville Gazette, excerpts from a New York Times Editorial and an International News Item.
From the Editorial first:
As Greyhawk suggests, notice all of the highly subjective mind-reading going on here, and the characterizations and attitude that underlies the entire perspective of this piece. You couldn't possibly guess the NY Times Editorial Board had been vehemently against the War, and despondent over highly successful elections, could you?
As if the Times considered momentum in Iraq "precious," they claim "precious momentum has been lost?" What kind of timetable are they expecting? If the NY Times had been around in any of the years between 1775 and 1789, they'd have issued an invitation for the British to return to occupation! But wait, didn't the NY Times think elections were rushed, and scheduled too hastily? Weren't they claiming the "poor security situation" would yield an illegitimate result?
Phew. And now the International News Item. All the news that's fit to print, just the facts Ma'am, right?
Last I checked, the anti-Iraqi Forces faced by the Coalition include the same "Insurgents" and Foreign Jihadists after the election as comprised it before. What, a delay in forming a government somehow got them madder? They felt somehow like they were winning, because of all the political horse-trading and deal-making? Aren't these the same guys who are trying to put an edn to democratic processes such as those? They continue despite violence, and reach a resolution, and this fuels violence, how exactly?
You can imagine the quandry of the NY Times Editorial Board. Which to put on the Opinion Page, which on the news pages? Answer: It doesn’t really matter, does it? NY Times stopped making that distinction years ago.
From the Editorial first:
The millions of brave Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in January didn't expect that nearly three months later, their squabbling politicians would still be struggling to form a government. As a result, precious momentum has been lost, and a briefly improving security situation has again started deteriorating. The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas.
As Greyhawk suggests, notice all of the highly subjective mind-reading going on here, and the characterizations and attitude that underlies the entire perspective of this piece. You couldn't possibly guess the NY Times Editorial Board had been vehemently against the War, and despondent over highly successful elections, could you?
As if the Times considered momentum in Iraq "precious," they claim "precious momentum has been lost?" What kind of timetable are they expecting? If the NY Times had been around in any of the years between 1775 and 1789, they'd have issued an invitation for the British to return to occupation! But wait, didn't the NY Times think elections were rushed, and scheduled too hastily? Weren't they claiming the "poor security situation" would yield an illegitimate result?
Phew. And now the International News Item. All the news that's fit to print, just the facts Ma'am, right?
Iraq's new prime minister announced Wednesday that he had submitted a full list of cabinet members, opening the way for a multiethnic government to assume power and end a three-month political stalemate that has appeared to be fueling violence.
Last I checked, the anti-Iraqi Forces faced by the Coalition include the same "Insurgents" and Foreign Jihadists after the election as comprised it before. What, a delay in forming a government somehow got them madder? They felt somehow like they were winning, because of all the political horse-trading and deal-making? Aren't these the same guys who are trying to put an edn to democratic processes such as those? They continue despite violence, and reach a resolution, and this fuels violence, how exactly?
You can imagine the quandry of the NY Times Editorial Board. Which to put on the Opinion Page, which on the news pages? Answer: It doesn’t really matter, does it? NY Times stopped making that distinction years ago.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
