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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (55932)	1/23/2006 9:48:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362471

New York Times Reconsiders Policy Change theleftcoaster.com As once upon a time Wall Street Journal editor, and lifelong conservative, Paul Craig Roberts noted earlier this week, "Former vice president Al Gore gave what I believe to be the most important political speech in my lifetime, and the New York Times, 'the newspaper of record,' did not report it. Not even excerpts." Gore's speech, as you know, comprehensively addressed very serious issues of American constitutional history, presidential crimes, congressional timidity and corruption, and the complicity of the mass media in the debasement of American democracy. I took the Times' decision to ignore Mr. Gore's seminal speech as a sure sign that the newspaper had decided to adopt some new policy. Maybe it had decided to close down the Times' Washington D.C. Bureau ..... Or, maybe it had elected to ignore national politics altogether. Possibly, I thought, the Times had decided to leave all news about constitutional crises in America to the law reviews, or perhaps it felt that allegations of presidential crimes were not 'fit to print' and better belong in the tabloid pages. Thank goodness, it seems I was wrong. Today, the New York Times reversed whatever its new policy had been and decided to cover those subjects, after all. The paper's editors resumed normally biased journalism with Adam Nagourney's loving portrait of Karl Rove's proposed campaign strategy for the G.O.P., delivered in a downtown D.C. hotel. [Addendum: Our own pessimist has more about this] Sure, it wasn't Constitution Hall. But the Times' coverage makes sense, doesn't it? After all, in the year 2000 didn't almost as many Americans vote for Karl Rove as Al Gore?