Stenography at the Times
I get a bit steamed when I see the lazy reporters at the NY Times parroting the Bush talking points on every subject. Today, following the talking points to the letter, the Times likens the clash between Bush and the Congress over the war to Newt Gingrich's decision to shut down the government when Clinton was prez.
WASHINGTON, April 3 — The parallels are striking: bold new Congressional majorities swept into power by public dissatisfaction with White House policies. The administration and Congress digging in for a test of wills over federal spending. A watershed presidential election looming.
The point, of course, is to frighten the already timid Dems into caving on the war funding, since the Republicans lost that Gingrich-Clinton battle. The circumstances here are entirely different. The prez then was very popular. The prez now is very unpopular. The cause then -- cutting Medicare -- was not that popular. The cause now -- ending the war -- is popular. The culprit then was the Republicans refusal to pass a funding bill. The culprit now is a prez that's chosen to veto the spending bill the Dems passed.
If the press can't get this straight, it can't get anything straight.
posted by walldon | 8:39 AM
1 Comments:
I am arriving at the thought that most journalists in this country, including those at the Times and the Wa Post, are simply poorly educated regardless of the prestige of their degrees. Are they from mere trade schools that teach a craft while ignoring such things as how the system of checks-and-balances is supposed to operate? They just do not seem to get the significance of a president arresting someone with no recourse whatsoever, or rampant politicization of an office that for eons has been treated by mutual assent as the least political of political appointments, or eavesdropping without warrants, or issuing statements saying the executive has the authority to ignore or override the laws passed by Congress, or unilateral warfare. Ho hum, big deal!
Post a Comment
<< Home