Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Win Smith who wrote (36689)	8/9/2002 2:16:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I don't get it, Nadine. Are you wishing the NYT had picked up on Armey and the "ethic cleansing" option? You didn't seem too wild about the Muraweic leak. Personally, I'm all for open discussion of current neocon dogma on these matters. I'm all for open discussion too, Win. That means printing the best arguments pro AND con in thoughtful articles. You know, something that a "paper of record" would do. It means expressing the paper's own opinion on the editorial page, not on every page. It does not mean beating the drum continually for the "con" arguments only, nor ignoring news that supports "pro" arguments (e.g. Iraqi dissident says Saddam will have nukes in 2 years), nor headlining someone's opinions whom you regard as a loose cannon and normally would never even quote. That is the behavior of a party advocacy vehicle, like the The Guardian. No, I take that back, even The Guardian has printed a couple of pro-Bush op-eds. The Times is now operating to the left of The Guardian.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next