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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (33390)	3/8/2004 10:52:53 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

Sometimes you need to go further to determine an agenda when they are identified with a liberal or conservative think tank. Previous reports they have published often show which agenda they are trying to move forward or if neutral.. but not easy.

To: Lane3 who wrote (33390)	3/8/2004 12:43:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

When they do identify a person's affiliation, for example, "So-and-So from Some Think Tank, a conservative think tank covering Whatever," they get accused of using the "c" word Sure they do. Because they routinely identify Heritage as "conservative" while failing to identify Brookings as "liberal". The heartburn is over the terminology in the NYT or the WaPo, in which conservatives are "conservative" or "hard-line conservative", while liberals are "moderate". Shouldn't everybody be "moderate"? They also freely apply the word "conservative" to some pretty gruesome circumstances. In today's NYT there is a story about Afghan women who have been so badly mistreated by their families that they try to commit suicide by self-immolation. What word does the NYT apply to a society that treats women worse than donkeys and sells and trades young girls off to their fate without a care? "conservative," naturally. Actually "medieval" or "traditional" or "ignorant" or "backwards" would be better words, the the Times doesn't deal in those judmental words, not when they can call it "conservative".