For many years, daily reading of The New York Times was as essential to me as my first cup of coffee. Part of that was my years living in New York City, part of it was the quality of the investigations and writing, and part was because at the end of each article sufficient background was given on the issue being reported that you were up to date even if you'd missed a previous article.
Over the past couple years, however, I've not been as consistently satisfied with the Times' quality or objectivity. In fact, I've been very dissatisfied with all forms of U.S. based 'media,' none of which have held to traditional standards of objectivity, accuracy, timeliness, or competency. Much of that is due to our current political environment, including our so-called wars, one on terror (which is a total misnomer since it isn't possible to effectively wage war against a tactic) and one in Iraq (which hasn't been any more effective than it was necessary in the first place). Bash, slash, burn, doublespeak, malapropism, incessant spin, falsehood, innuendo and purposeful omission are not conducive to anyone's understanding or grasp of reality, but those are the things that have showered down on us.
As the old saying goes, I've learned to take most things I hear or read with a grain or two of salt. But, last week a Times editorial annoyed me enough to chew the legs off a grand piano. The date was October 8, the editorial's title was "New Thoughts on Old Boy Deals," and the subject was the suspicious switch from the administration's constant practice of awarding lucrative no-bid contracts to a select list of corporations to suddenly seeking a few bids. The comment within that editorial that made my hackles rise was: "We must step back and congratulate the administration for agreeing to hold a fair auction."
Oh, really? Balderdash!!
Why on earth should any of us congratulate this administration for finally taking a semblance of responsible action, especially since that action was only camoflage clothing for for their reprehensible past behavior? Congratulating these unconscionable charlatans whose disregard for any citizens not within their immediate circle of corporate sleaze is like saying thank you to a serial rapist for not gleefully sodomizing victim number 1,776 for the fiftieth time. As I also wrote in my letter to the editors of the Times, even if our citizenry was culpable in baring their behinds by voting for this administration a second time, they still deserve better - from this administration and from the New York Times.
Over the past couple years, however, I've not been as consistently satisfied with the Times' quality or objectivity. In fact, I've been very dissatisfied with all forms of U.S. based 'media,' none of which have held to traditional standards of objectivity, accuracy, timeliness, or competency. Much of that is due to our current political environment, including our so-called wars, one on terror (which is a total misnomer since it isn't possible to effectively wage war against a tactic) and one in Iraq (which hasn't been any more effective than it was necessary in the first place). Bash, slash, burn, doublespeak, malapropism, incessant spin, falsehood, innuendo and purposeful omission are not conducive to anyone's understanding or grasp of reality, but those are the things that have showered down on us.
As the old saying goes, I've learned to take most things I hear or read with a grain or two of salt. But, last week a Times editorial annoyed me enough to chew the legs off a grand piano. The date was October 8, the editorial's title was "New Thoughts on Old Boy Deals," and the subject was the suspicious switch from the administration's constant practice of awarding lucrative no-bid contracts to a select list of corporations to suddenly seeking a few bids. The comment within that editorial that made my hackles rise was: "We must step back and congratulate the administration for agreeing to hold a fair auction."
Oh, really? Balderdash!!
Why on earth should any of us congratulate this administration for finally taking a semblance of responsible action, especially since that action was only camoflage clothing for for their reprehensible past behavior? Congratulating these unconscionable charlatans whose disregard for any citizens not within their immediate circle of corporate sleaze is like saying thank you to a serial rapist for not gleefully sodomizing victim number 1,776 for the fiftieth time. As I also wrote in my letter to the editors of the Times, even if our citizenry was culpable in baring their behinds by voting for this administration a second time, they still deserve better - from this administration and from the New York Times.
posted by kaz at 8:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home