The NY TImes reveals its anti-Democratic bias once again

[dumpster_baby]

Do't we all just love the way the NY Times uses loaded language to influence the audience in their poliitcal "news" reporting. For exmple, when dealing with the Bush AWOL scandal, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/campaign/01CND-CAMP.html
we get this:

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, caustically attacked President Bush today on his military record, as the party's presidential candidates campaigned in most of the seven states that will hold primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.


But, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/campaign/TEXT-MCAULLIFE.html?pagewanted=2 , we get the actual words of the suposedly caustic "attack" by McAuliffe:


I don't know if John Kerry will be the nominee. I have to be neutral towards all of them. But if he is the nominee, let me tell you this, George, I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard.


George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up. And there's John Kerry, on the stage with a chest full of medals that he earned by saving lives of American soldiers.

....

The facts are what they are, George. George Bush got out of college in 1968, the height of the draft. He used his father's contacts to get a spot in the Texas Guard. He then wanted to go work on an Alabama Senate race. He went to Alabama for one year. He didn't show up.


Call it whatever you want, AWOL, doesn't matter. But if this is the way the Republicans are going, you bet, bring it on, legitimate debate.




When the electoral revolution cometh, I say we slice up whatever MegaCorp owns the Times.....

[enki23]

1. oh christ

that's almost as lame as an example coulter might give for the opposite. "caustic-ness" (causticity?) is in the eye of the beholder. it's a measure of vehemence, not a derogatory term. it means "nasty" not "untrue" or even "unfair." talk about making a coulterian mountain out of a single molehill. i'm *sure* we can do better than that silly example.

the times may be anti-democratic, but it really doesn't seem to be anti-Democratic. as if the Democratic party were anything but a slightly different extension of the same people who control the Republican party, the corporate media, and the corporate "business" world which owns them all. the times seems to be, socially, fairly liberal, as are most of the mainstream national media sources. it's also economically conservative, pro-capitalist, anti-democratic (small "d"), pro-corporate, and anti-labor--as are *all* the mainstream national media sources. (and the marketing/public-relations/propaganda sources which provide the vast majority of their content.)

[bryant69]

2. In agreement

It is a silly argument--anyway does the word Caustic have an automatic negative connotation?

In my mind the head of the DNC being Caustic towards the President is more or less doing what he is being paid to do.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CatWoman]

3. enki!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hi: