But the fact is that the NYT's specific reports on foreign affairs issues, i.e., the treatment of Sandy "Pants" Burger's theft by trying to show the Adminsitration in a bad light for Pants' sticky fingers, the relegation of Lyin' Joe Wilson's foibles to page 987 of the main edition, etc., are clearly on topic because they shape the debate and are used by everyone here to make a point on foreign affairs. Thus, if the source is no good, neither is the argument.
But Okrent didn't write about any of that in the piece that he allegedly made the statement I am allegedly arguing about. Nothing about Berger, nothing about Wilson, I went back to double-check. So under conventional logic, my "argument about Okrent's statement" can't have anything to do with that particular rant. And if the NYT is allegedly no good on the source front, where, exactly, does that put the ever popular warbloggers and political commentators and Debka-type sites so favored by W's faithful? Is the Chinese Muslim army on the march into Afghanistan again?
I am, of course, perfectly familiar with the personal vendetta style of "argument" favored by W's handlers. As near as I can tell, the style hasn't changed much since McCain in South Carolina in Y2k. McCain was hardly a liberal either, but then, I don't think anybody would call Richard Clarke a liberal, or Paul O'Neill, or Scott Ritter either, they got pretty much the same personal vendetta treatment. Some people dig that stuff.
Alternatively, perhaps you can point me to the "fairandbalanced" version of nytimes.com .
Until then, I'll stick by Times, no good in the eyes of the faithful though it may be. |
