In the big articles I read they always make much more of an effort at balance than any of the neocon bloviating pundits I've ever read.
The pundits don't claim to be covering the news; they are writing opinion pieces. The Times claims to be an impartial news source and the paper of record.
Can you not see the difference? I know the pundits are just expressing their opinions, but when I read news sources my hope is to learn some facts. For instance, how does the Congress really feel about the proposed war in Iraq? "Deeply Uneasy" as the Times says, or just asking hard questions about our preparedness, as the Post says? Which is it? Compare the two stories, both covering the same event:
Edit: I would also note that the Post story spends all but one paragraph on the Iraqis, while the Times story headlines the Iraqis but then spends almost all the story talking about Armey and reactions to Armey. Only the first two paragraphs, reproduced below, even mentioned the Iraqis.
___________________________________________________________
U.S. Pushes Unity for Iraqi Opposition
Administration to Urge Factions to End Squabbles, Prepare for Post-Hussein Era
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 9, 2002; Page A20
The Bush administration intends to tell leaders of the fractious Iraqi opposition at a rare State Department meeting today to end their squabbles and unite in preparation for the end of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, administration officials said.
A carefully staged session with U.S. diplomatic, military and intelligence officials is designed to convince Hussein's opponents that they must organize in concrete ways after years of fruitless attempts to undermine him. The administration also wants the opposition to endorse an alternative democratic, multi-ethnic vision marketable to Iraqis and skeptical countries in the region
...
The session with six of the most prominent Iraqi opposition groups comes as President Bush, who is aiming to topple Hussein, faces questions from Congress and foreign allies about the depth of U.S. preparations for the use of force. Senators from both parties emphasized during hearings last week that the administration must develop credible Iraqi partners and a realistic plan to establish stability if Hussein is targeted.
washingtonpost.com
_________________________________________________________
Hussein Foes Hold U.S. Talks as Capitol Hill Unease Grows
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 — Leaders of Iraqi groups that oppose Saddam Hussein were meeting today with senior administration officials amid growing signs of unease on Capitol Hill over the prospects of war against Iraq.
The opposition leaders conferred with high-level State and Defense Department officials only hours after the House majority leader, Representative Dick Armey, warned that an unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law and undermine world support for President Bush's goal of ousting President Hussein.
...
The remarks by Mr. Armey, a Texas Republican who is retiring this year, were the most prominent sign of Congressional unease that the administration is moving rapidly toward a war against Iraq and were especially striking coming from a leading conservative and a staunch Bush ally.
nytimes.com |
