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 (72104)	2/7/2003 10:47:45 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I've started reading Sullivan in my nightly rounds of the blogs. He has some interesting stuff, particularly on aids in Africa, etc Wait a minute, let me scrape my jaw off the floor. Will wonders never cease? JohmM is reading Sullivan! It actually has the opposite effect. Makes Sullivan look petty Ah, well, I knew you couldn't come all the way round so fast. As for the effect of Sullivan's complaints, doesn't it depend whether he's complaining about something or nothing? In other words, does the offense warrant the complaint? Raines has given Sullivan some very easy shots this last year, imo. 43 stories about the Masters. Spiking the Times' own sports writers when they deviated from the party line. Anti-war headlines that don't line up with the content of the articles. Anti-war editorializing on the front pages in the guise of "analysis" warning of "quagmires". Howard Kurtz reporting low morale and near-rebellion at the Times. Etc, etc.

To: JohnM who wrote (72104)	2/7/2003 4:33:05 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

It actually has the opposite effect. Makes Sullivan look petty. I agree. Sullivan would be better off to let others point out the Times Bias. All the media critics have been following Raines closely. After all, he controls the content of the best paper in the world. No one here would give a damn if we were talking about the "Podunk" news. His change in the way the Times "plays" stories is the subject of comment, and a fair subject to be covered, IMO. He shot himself in the foot with the "Masters" story. And the spiking of the Ritter story is being noted by many sources. I try to "own up" to mistakes I see made by people I normally agree with. I think it makes me more credible here.