Monday, December 3, 2007
Cross your fingers
"The United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing..., oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick.... Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process . . . incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN's performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent."
If you start naming American newspapers from now until the cows come home, you won't ever think of where those sentences appeared on Saturday.

In a very strong article, the Los Angeles Times, believe it or not, has taken a stand for clarity. I really hope they mean it because they're influential enough to make an impact. After all, the debates is one of the few times we get an opportunity to make any kind of sense out of the endless streams of words and nonsense that the hordes of candidates put out. Many media are active parts of a maddening and enormous obfuscation enterprise. How momentous it could be if outlets like the L.A. Times are even noticing. What is said and what happens just might get reported as what was said and what took place. Imagine. We'd have a fighting chance to figure out who we want to vote for instead of against.

Labels: , , ,

Permalink | | posted by jau at 9:21 AM


3 more:
Blogger DADvocate — at 11:32 AM, December 03, 2007:
It is encouraging to see the LA Times take such a strong stance. The LA Times is correct in using the description "corrupt and incompetent" for CNN.

CNN's performance has been miserable at best. There background "check" was less than a teenager could find in a 10 minute Google search.
 

< home >

Blogger ligneus — at 5:53 PM, December 03, 2007:
I believe there was a similar piece in the NYT. I guess it's finally sinking in to these likewise incompetent organisations through their falling circulation figures and income that having a lefty agenda in the US of A is not so smart after all. Specially so since they tried to drive the animosity towards the Iraq war and GWB by blatantly misleading reporting and opinion columns.
 

< home >

Blogger ligneus — at 6:02 PM, December 03, 2007:
My mistake, it was Alan Sullivan saying 'it's hard to imagine the NYT printing a piece like this'.
 

< home >


Post a Comment

< home