Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (28965)	5/8/2002 4:04:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What is not credible about Sullivan? Did he misrepresent the article? Do you or Win believe, that had a left-wing candidate been shot by a right-wing assassin, the Times would have refered to a "right wing activist", and not a "right wing extremist"? But it tries mightily to keep from making the ideological mistake of making the world fit its point of view. Not so you'd notice. All you can say is that it's far from the worst offender. The British papers are far worse. The Times definitely regards Democratic administrations as fundamentally more legitimate than Republican administrations, and Israeli Labor governments as more legitimate than Likud governments, and its coverage reflects this view. How many times have I and others pointed out the Time's slant, esp. wrt to the Mideast coverage, where it has tried mightily to make the world fit into its Olso-formed point of view? (Eg. a small Peace Now protest gets a front-page article, while much larger Likud protest gets a 17th paragraph mention in an article on military affairs) But if you don't want to believe it, you won't believe it, I guess.