Jason Steck, writing at The Moderate Voice, points out something that tells you exactly how biased the New York Times has become. It is written so matter-of-factly in the Times that it takes a second to hit you.
With evident surprise and reluctance, the New York Times reports on one overwhelmingly pro-American country — Albania. Coming along with an apparent sea change of improvement in attitudes towards the U.S. among European allies, this would seem to be good news.
Troubling, however, is the Times‘ approach:
Albanians’ support for the war in Iraq is nearly unanimous, and any perceived failings of American foreign policy are studiously ignored. A two-day effort to find anyone of prominence who might offer some criticism of the United States turned up just one name, and that person was out of the country.
Steck caught it. The Time's reporter(s) spent two days trying to find someone who would support their preconceived, mandatory story line. When they couldn't they actually slipped and wrote that they couldn't get their dance card filled by the appropriate narrative. Without a second thought. They didn't spend two days gathering news. They spent two days attempting to make it.
They are actually even worse than I thought they were. Seriously. This is no longer a paper of record. It is a propaganda mill, straight-up and with no mitigating tendencies at all.
This is no longer a paper of record. It is a propaganda mill, straight-up and with no mitigating tendencies at all.
I live for the day that pinchy boy has to trade his mansion for a cardboard box under a bridge and NYT stock is valued like Wiemar currency — by the pound.
I noticed that, too, on my blog. Like the opinions of proles don’t count. If Bush is so universally popular, then why the 500 armed military folks in Albania?
Pingback: Maggie's Farm