[PREV - CYCLE_OF_VIOLENCE] [TOP]
July 20, 2006
The New York Times ran
a front page, above the fold
story announcing that
even the Arab leaders I'm beginning to think
were all against Hezbollah. that "front page, above
the fold" is a synonym for
The "Democracy Now" "bald faced lies" where
worldview seems to be that the Times is concerned.
while there's some sincere
criticism of Hezbollah So: I'm now at a point
(particularly from the where I reflexively
aforementioned "leaders"), disbelieve "The New York
the common folk are much Times", and (largely)
more divided. reflexively believe
"Democracy Now".
Is this at all defensible?
Obviously, this is the sort
of thing that can get out of
hand.
BROKEN_WING
In all honesty: didn't I
used to be this way with
the Libertarian press?
My defense there was that
I'd never caught them
making something up -- if
they had a problem, it
was a tendency to skip
inconvenient facts until
they felt like they had a
way to deal with them.
Lies of omission, perhaps,
but rarely of commission, and
rarely any outright errors.
It's possible that ECODOOM
in general this can
be said of any
minority press.
They can't get away
with blatant fakery,
and so don't try.
So the rule of thumb
is that smaller is
better...
Pay attention to the
opposition, whoever
they happen to be.
Be contrarian.
--------
[NEXT - OFF_THE_FENCE]