Tag: New York Times
Was that a clear enough answer? No? OK, then, here are a few examples to illustrate.
1. A politician, almost certainly a Republican't, claims that there's no scientific consensus on global warming (oh yes there is, big time!), or that there's some big conspiracy/scandal about a few random emails climate scientists sent (oh no there isn't!), or whatever other crazy/idiotic/ignorant/fallacious comment the Republican't politician made. In the article, you quote the Republican't, then immediately say something like, "of course, as everyone knows, THAT IS NOT TRUE, in fact it is a OUTRIGHT LIE." Got it?
2. Another politician, against almost certainly a Republican't, claims that "Obamacare" (not its real name, which should also be pointed out as a lie) increases the deficit. In the article, you quote the lying Republican't, then immediately say something like, "of course, as the non-partisan CBO says, THAT IS NOT TRUE, in fact it is an OUTRIGHT LIE." Got it?
3. Yet another politician, amazingly yet again a Republican't (sensing a pattern here?), claims that up is down, black is white, hot is cold, Obama's a Kenyan anti-colonialist, Democrats are really socialists, there's no such thing as evolution, the recession didn't start under President Bush, blah blah blah. Again, in the article, you quote the crazy/lying liar Republican't, then immediately say something like, "yes, these people are utterly nuts, factually challenged, pathological liars, etc." Got it?
Then, the media might actually start to regain a bit of the credibility it's utterly lost in recent years, by its constant perpetuation of an absurd and false "balance" between "both sides" of any "argument" (e.g., one side says the earth is flat, the other says it's round). But will they do that? I mean, reporting the facts and letting readers know when someone's telling a lie is just so hard, it would require reporters and editors to get off their fat behinds and actually do what they are getting paid good money to do. What a concept, huh?
Charlie Savage, who when he worked for the Boston Globe did magnificent journalism in exposing the extensive use of signing statements by the Bush administration, has a piece on the front page titled Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen. The public editor, Arthur Brisbane, devotes his Sunday column to the topic as well, under the title The Secrets of Government Killing.
There are several issues of importance in this matter. The first is that the administration has authorized the killing of American citizens not in ordinary acts of war and not even in a true combat zone, but in what can only be called a targeted assassination. The second, perhaps of even more significance, is that the authorization was granted by a memorandum that has even now not been disclosed to the American people, you know, the "We, the people of the United States" who are the legitimate sovereigns of this nation on whose behalf the government is supposed to be acting.
I do not propose to fully go through either piece - that is why I have provided the links. I do wish to explore a few aspects of the issue and fully intend to offer my own thoughts, which will be neither complimentary towards or supportive of this administration.
In The Boston Globe we can read in King Memorial celebrates a leader, not just a symbol the following:
So let's be clear: Without King, the black uprising would have been far more furious and more painful for African-Americans; even in the darkest days, he reminded his followers of their faith in God and in the American Dream. For white people, especially the timid moderates at whom the Letter from Birmingham Jail was aimed, a more violent uprising would only have deepened the racial wedge. It took King's rational, but urgent, appeals to make enough whites understand what was at stake.
But there is more, both in this editorial, and in that of The New York Times.