|
curious that we actually agree about the likelihood of impeachment.
and keep in mind that i am not making tha same kind of argument as host was. i have heard these arguments from the earliest phase of bushwar and was never really convinced by them. almost entirely on pragmatic grounds--that i think bushco. should be held accountable is a different matter. it seemed a waste of time to float an argument for this when it was obvious from day one that it wasnt going to happen.
as for the ny times: you act as though the front page has only one article on it, that the paper operates with a single ideological perspective that you can summarize by lists.
i do not anything like support for a claim of political agenda in that list: information about abu ghraib was surfacing through the period: what would have have had the times do, bury the story? downplay its importance? on what basis?
it seems a kind of absurd claim you are advancing, ranger: that you can use that list of stories as evidence of a political disposition for the paper as a whole. you could counter with a list of happyface stories about the "progress" being made in iraq.
and that list would not prove anything either.
are you relying on the bolzell school of "media analysis" for this?
is there any more comprehensive analytic material behind it?
if there is, could you post links please?
i am curious to see what possible analytic position could be used to arrive at your conclusion....thanks.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|