Leftovers from yesterday, Thursday 07/21 . . .
The New York Times: There is no doubt it is a great compiler of news, though it might be a bit selective about what and how it reports. I don't think that there is much doubt that it also functions as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. It certainly has been a fan of Hillary Clinton, whom it endorsed for Senate in 2000, depite "her considerable ethical baggage," as it put it. Later in Clinton's Senatorial career, the Times glowingly referred to her as "New York's excellent Senator." Really? What landmark legislation did she propose and guide through the Senate?
That said, I'll have to give the Times a look or two once again. I once read it on a daily basis.
Interesting about fussing re press bias. Biased newspapers are nothing new in the U. S. In times past, biased papers were probably as much the rule as were more objective journals. This can be seen in the names of some of the papers, such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, whence, btw, the nickname Slick Willie originated, ironically. One of the paper's columnists was less than impressed by his state's future contribution the Presidency.
Closer to home, the Raleigh News & Observer was once given an award by the NC Democratic Party for its sympathetic coverage.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Paul Revere: O. T.'s recitation of the opening lines of Henry Wadsworth That Fellow's poem reminds of an occurrence years ago that involve his poem, sort of. Late one night, teletypes in newsrooms all across the country chattered to life, rendering the lines cited by O. T., at least initially. Then the ode veered off course, taking Paul into explicitly X-rated activities that involved neither the British nor his horse (not positive about the latter).
The source of the vulgar poem was a techician at one of the wire services, AP IIRC. He had taken a teletype off-line, he thought, to test it. It obviously was not off-line. Naturally, a hue and cry arose, and AP fired the culprit, a sad stifling of creativity, methinks.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Bachmann and her broomstick: Nice pun, O. T. If she wins the nomination (perish the thought), she will have to fly it over all 57 states, won't she?
________________________________________________________________________________
Debt default: Arthur, thank you for the list of economists and their commentary re default. I emphatically agree with both you and O. T. on the consequences, which, as O. T. noted, are already accruing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Samaritan Ministry: I have volunteered there a few times, staying overnight. I got more out of being there than the guests got out of me, I suspect. I worked in the kitchen at supper time, then socialized with the guests till bedtime, then arose to staff the front desk at some vampirish hour. Spending time with those fellows helped transform The Homeless from an anonymous group of winos into real people, some who are quite intelligent and articulate. "There but for the Grace of God go I . . . " It is a well-run organization, caring for, but not coddling, its guests. I have been unable to volunteer of late, as I have had to remain close and on-call for my dad and late mom. I recommend volunteering. If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll be happy to point him/her in the right direction.
There are 57 states? I thought there were only 56. Didn't Texas just secede? Or was that just "get some votes" talk? Governor Perry, BTW, is now 3rd in the GOP 2012 polls. Can't make up his mind...secede or run for President. Wish Jefferson Davis had made the 2nd choice.
ReplyDeleteIn the 19th century, there was no such thing as a newspaper that even tried to appear unbiased. All were political organs and "news" was relegated to inside pages.
Our area had two weeklies when the Civil War began, the People's Press, a Whig organ opposed to secession, and the Western Sentinel, a Democrat paper in favor of secession. After the war, the Union Republican joined the mix.
The idea that the NYT deliberately doesn't cover certain stories is hogwash...I'd call that paracaniac.
(laughing) "Paracaniac"? Clever coinage, but hold on, I haven't posted anything from fringe web sites.
ReplyDeleteThere appeared to be some undercoverage of the Slick One's scandals (not confining this to Monica) on the part of the media in general. I note how quickly Juanita Broaddrick's accusation was brushed over, or most cases, ignored.
Now, I freely concede that my vision may be colored by my absolute disgust with both Clintons, but they really seem to have received passes from much of the media, IMO.
Well, Stab, you need to start reading the Blaze. Otherwise you are missing so much stuff that the mainstream press doesn't dare cover. I believe that their slogan is "You heard it here first, even if it is irrelevant or didn't happen."
ReplyDeleteAs to the undercoverage of Clinton, Murdoch's "Wall Street Journal" more than made up for it. They had to print three (3) retractions (not "corrections", "retractions") of phony stories made up by Republican hysterians, all of them about the Clintons.
Murdoch's greatest achievement is turning that once great newspaper into just another propaganda sheet.
O. T., I'll skip "The Blaze," I think. Actually, I'll take your advice and look at the "NY Times." Who knows, no that I have been moderated to listening to NPR, I may see it in a different light. IIRC correctly, the paper had done well with pure science coverage, something at which most journalists are hopeless.
ReplyDelete