Thursday, February 05, 2004
Sad Times
Why in the NYTimes are we subjected to articles that consider conservatives and the GOP like an exhibit on display to be dissected and prodded, while Democratic views and candidates are treated as mainstream?
The points that are valid against Kerry are treated as if they're simply hot air to destroy him and not valid criticism. The Times even stresses the likelihood of Bush slinging copious amounts of mud at Kerry, quoting a Kerry advisor as saying:
Perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into this, but it seems that the Kerry team is being treated with much more respect and the Bush team is being treated like a science experiment to be gawked at.
UPDATE: Oxblog has a different perspective of this article:
I don't think that they're giving credit to the Republican cheapshots. It seems that by recounting them without substantive commentary, they're simply allowing the reader to put the pieces together and ridiculte the GOP.
I do agree that the article doesn't treat Kerry favorably, but it doesn't hurt him (it may represent the beginning of his falling out with the media, though) What it does do is treat democrats as a whole neutrally (how often do you see the word democrat in there, and how often do you see GOP or Republican?), and the GOP like a bunch of children to be scorned. But, don't we expect that?
The points that are valid against Kerry are treated as if they're simply hot air to destroy him and not valid criticism. The Times even stresses the likelihood of Bush slinging copious amounts of mud at Kerry, quoting a Kerry advisor as saying:
Another Kerry adviser was more blunt. "This is not the Dukakis campaign," the adviser said. "We're not going to take it. And if they're going to come at us with stuff, whatever that stuff may be, if it goes to a place where the '88 campaign did, then everything is on the table. Everything."
Perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into this, but it seems that the Kerry team is being treated with much more respect and the Bush team is being treated like a science experiment to be gawked at.
UPDATE: Oxblog has a different perspective of this article:
THE FEEDING FRENZY HAS BEGUN: This NYT article gives way too much attention and credibility to cheapshots that Republicans have begun to take at Kerry. While Kerry's defenders get a few good shots in themselves, you've got to scroll down a ways to see what they say. But that is the price of being #1. And while the Times' editors are hoping that John Edwards will do their mud-slinging for them, the fact is that the media will play the lead role in picking Kerry apart.
Now, one particularly disturbing aspect of the NYT article is that it focuses on partisan slurs while ignoring substantive criticisms of Kerry's record. If the RNC can get top billing by calling Kerry an extremist, it doesn't exactly promote serious debate. But it's not as if the Times is letting Bush off the hook. Also in today's paper, the Times reviews the military service issue, which never plays well for Bush.
I don't think that they're giving credit to the Republican cheapshots. It seems that by recounting them without substantive commentary, they're simply allowing the reader to put the pieces together and ridiculte the GOP.
I do agree that the article doesn't treat Kerry favorably, but it doesn't hurt him (it may represent the beginning of his falling out with the media, though) What it does do is treat democrats as a whole neutrally (how often do you see the word democrat in there, and how often do you see GOP or Republican?), and the GOP like a bunch of children to be scorned. But, don't we expect that?
Comments:
Post a Comment
