I must say that I start to shut down as soon as I read the term "MSM". It's become so politically loaded that it's hard not to make assumptions about someone's political world view as soon as they pop out with it. The term has gone from any discussion of political bias to often suggest there's this uniform media elite out to destroy the common man.
GeorgeSorwell
· 5 months ago
The Weekly Standard!
jchem
· 5 months ago
George, relax...how many times has Media Matters, Think Progress or any other such Left site been linked to here? I don't read the Weekly Standard, but it seems to me they raise a valid criticism regarding the NYT coverage. Perhaps you can explain where they are missing the mark.
GeorgeSorwell
· 5 months ago
Jchem--
This is a post complaining about double standards. As if the Weekly Standard were some kind of exemplar.
As for the NYT, when this same author, David Adesnik, wanted an accurate copy of Sarah Palin's resignation speech for what he wrote three posts from this one, he got it from the New York Times.
Soldiers are more important than journalists because journalists have a choice. Journalists are following their fame and fortune. Soldiers are just serving a legal commitment to defend the Constitution and must obey the officers and non-commissioned officers appointed over them.
DaGoat
· 5 months ago
They are all double standards, but the Weekly Standard's opinion is diluted by their own consistent use of double standards. It's the pot calling the kettle black again.
adesnik
· 5 months ago
Pacatrue, I think "MSM" has become a fairly mainstream usage that can be used without prejudice, even if it has somewhat derogatory origins. We do need a term to describe the body of professional journalists responsible who work for newspapers and broadcast outlets.
George, I see no inconsistency between linking to a NYT transcript and criticizing their coverage. Just because I accept their ability to transcribe a speech does not imply that I must accept their analysis as unbiased.
Also, George, I'm beginning to gather that you don't take the Weekly Standard seriously. I'm no fan of The Nation, but when I read their articles, I pay attention to their facts and analysis, rather than assuming that anything published in The Nation is useless.
In fact, George, I even pay serious attention to the contents of your comments!
GeorgeSorwell
· 5 months ago
Thanks, David.
Maybe DaGoat would have enjoyed some serious attention, too.
All Comments
This is a post complaining about double standards. As if the Weekly Standard were some kind of exemplar.
As for the NYT, when this same author, David Adesnik, wanted an accurate copy of Sarah Palin's resignation speech for what he wrote three posts from this one, he got it from the New York Times.
By the way, if you go a few more posts down from that one, you'll find the resident liberal also complaining about the New York Times.
George, I see no inconsistency between linking to a NYT transcript and criticizing their coverage. Just because I accept their ability to transcribe a speech does not imply that I must accept their analysis as unbiased.
Also, George, I'm beginning to gather that you don't take the Weekly Standard seriously. I'm no fan of The Nation, but when I read their articles, I pay attention to their facts and analysis, rather than assuming that anything published in The Nation is useless.
In fact, George, I even pay serious attention to the contents of your comments!
Maybe DaGoat would have enjoyed some serious attention, too.