A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Monday, February 17, 2003
Does an advanced degree in economics make you a good media critic? No. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman reveals to the benighted readers of The New York Times that the American media is less critical of war in Iraq than those in Europe.
Yeah, well that's like saying that Dianne Feinstein is less liberal than Barbara Boxer. It's true -- but it's not a "Great Divide."
Krugman contends that our media is ignoring or minimizing opposition to the war because it doesn't cheer it on -- like many newspaper in Europe do. The idea of objectivity, even if it is too often only paid lip service, doesn't even exist in the much of the European media.
There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets ? operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic ? have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.
So which is it? I've reported, you decide.
I'd argue the truth is the former, but it's obvious what Krugman believes, because, like the European media, he didn't attempt to provide any balance.
11:12 PM
|
|
