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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35383)	7/30/2002 7:21:47 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

As for it being up to the Bushies, not the Times, to make the pro-war case, does this mean that you feel that the NY Times should function as an advocacy vehicle for the opposition? I've been arguing that it has been functioning as one, and here it seems you agree -g-. Oh, I have no problem with this kind of analysis. And, given the hard time the NYTimes gave the Clintons (you will recall who first wrote about Whitewater in the national media, Jeff Gerth of the Times), we can hardly call it an opposition paper. My own take on media responsibility is that one of it's roles is to persistently look to see if the emperor has any clothes. Bush is in that position now; Clinton was before. It would be best if they all took that task to heart. However, at the moment, the righties go after the Dems, the moderates don't go after anyone. Every once in a while you see something like this pop up in places like the Times. Hopefully, we'll see more.