THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Two More Years
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 4, 2006
We need people in Washington who are willing to stand up to the bully in chief. Unfortunately they’re still in short supply.
Excerpt
I’m worried, however, that Democrats may have counted on the Iraq Study Group to provide them with political cover. Now that the study group has apparently wimped out, will the Democrats do the same?
--MORE--
Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts
Monday, December 4, 2006
Has He Started Talking to the Walls? : FRANK RICH - Bush’s Unreality
Reposted
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 3, 2006
The more President Bush loses his hold on reality, the more language is severed from its meaning altogether.
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
--MORE--
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Has He Started Talking to the Walls? : FRANK RICH - Bush’s Unreality
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 3, 2006
The more President Bush loses his hold on reality, the more language is severed from its meaning altogether.
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
--MORE--
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 3, 2006
The more President Bush loses his hold on reality, the more language is severed from its meaning altogether.
IT turns out we’ve been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what’s going on with President Bush. The text we should be consulting instead is “The Final Days,” the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we’ve witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn’t merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It’s not that he can’t handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t know what the truth is.
--MORE--
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
New York Times reporters are 'now allowed' to call Iraq 'civil war'
'Civil' Disobedience Spreads -- 'NYT' Adjusts Language on Iraq
Bill Keller
By E&P Staff
Published: November 28, 2006 10:05 AM ET
NEW YORK In the wake of the highly-publicized NBC and MSNBC decision to start referring to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war," other media outlets, which have long used phrases such as "sectarian violence," are re-considering their language in this regard.
"After consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who
directly oversee this coverage, we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate," Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, revealed in a statement sent to E&P. "It's hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. (See Ed Wong's story on the subject in Sunday's paper.)
"We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of "civil war" is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."
The Washington Post, however, has made no such announcement. Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, told E&P's Joe Strupp: "We just describe what goes on everyday. We don't have a policy about it. We are not making judgments one way or another. The language in the stories is very precise when dealing with it. At various times people say it is 'close to a civil war,' but we don't have a policy about it."
On his MSNBC "Hardball" show on Monday night, host Chris Matthews asked the Post's Pultizer Prize winning reporter Dana Priest about this issue. Priest replied: "Well, I think one of the reasons the President resists that label is because it equates almost with a failure of U.S. policy. I will say for the Washington Post, we have not labeled it a civil war. I have asked around to see why not or see what’s the thinking on that -- and really our reporters have not filed that. We try to avoid the labels, particularly when the elected government itself does not call its situation a civil war. I certainly — and I would agree with General McCaffrey on this — absolutely the level of violence equals a civil war."
The Los Angeles Times has used "civil war" for a few weeks but the Boston Globe, according to an article therer today, revealed, "Before deciding its policy on the term, the Globe is weighing the judgments of the news organizations that have reporters regularly in Iraq."
The Globe did note: "Observers said the media's willingness to reject the White House's depiction of events was reminiscent of 1968, when Cronkite filmed a Vietnam documentary and offered his belief that the United States was losing the war. 'There is a clear parallel,' Edward C. Pease , a journalism professor at the University of Utah, said of yesterday's NBC broadcast during a morning time-slot that is now far more popular than the evening news. 'The way the media frames things helps lead the public perception.'"
FoxNews has said it does not plan to change its terminology.
"Words have power, and naming it a civil war does begin to shape people's perception of what's happening there," Thomas Hollihan, a professor at USC's Annenberg School for Communication who studies political rhetoric, told the Los Angeles Times. The midterm election results may have emboldened news outlets to adopt a characterization the White House has rejected, he added. "The media has, by and large, been very fearful of being perceived of being liberally biased," Hollihan said. "Now that the election has occurred, there may be more license on the part of the media to say what the public has been feeling."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003439273
Bill Keller
By E&P Staff
Published: November 28, 2006 10:05 AM ET
NEW YORK In the wake of the highly-publicized NBC and MSNBC decision to start referring to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war," other media outlets, which have long used phrases such as "sectarian violence," are re-considering their language in this regard.
"After consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who
directly oversee this coverage, we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate," Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, revealed in a statement sent to E&P. "It's hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. (See Ed Wong's story on the subject in Sunday's paper.)
"We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of "civil war" is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."
The Washington Post, however, has made no such announcement. Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, told E&P's Joe Strupp: "We just describe what goes on everyday. We don't have a policy about it. We are not making judgments one way or another. The language in the stories is very precise when dealing with it. At various times people say it is 'close to a civil war,' but we don't have a policy about it."
On his MSNBC "Hardball" show on Monday night, host Chris Matthews asked the Post's Pultizer Prize winning reporter Dana Priest about this issue. Priest replied: "Well, I think one of the reasons the President resists that label is because it equates almost with a failure of U.S. policy. I will say for the Washington Post, we have not labeled it a civil war. I have asked around to see why not or see what’s the thinking on that -- and really our reporters have not filed that. We try to avoid the labels, particularly when the elected government itself does not call its situation a civil war. I certainly — and I would agree with General McCaffrey on this — absolutely the level of violence equals a civil war."
The Los Angeles Times has used "civil war" for a few weeks but the Boston Globe, according to an article therer today, revealed, "Before deciding its policy on the term, the Globe is weighing the judgments of the news organizations that have reporters regularly in Iraq."
The Globe did note: "Observers said the media's willingness to reject the White House's depiction of events was reminiscent of 1968, when Cronkite filmed a Vietnam documentary and offered his belief that the United States was losing the war. 'There is a clear parallel,' Edward C. Pease , a journalism professor at the University of Utah, said of yesterday's NBC broadcast during a morning time-slot that is now far more popular than the evening news. 'The way the media frames things helps lead the public perception.'"
FoxNews has said it does not plan to change its terminology.
"Words have power, and naming it a civil war does begin to shape people's perception of what's happening there," Thomas Hollihan, a professor at USC's Annenberg School for Communication who studies political rhetoric, told the Los Angeles Times. The midterm election results may have emboldened news outlets to adopt a characterization the White House has rejected, he added. "The media has, by and large, been very fearful of being perceived of being liberally biased," Hollihan said. "Now that the election has occurred, there may be more license on the part of the media to say what the public has been feeling."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003439273
Sunday, November 26, 2006
No One to Lose To: MAUREEN DOWD - A Civil War?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
No One to Lose To
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 25, 2006
In Iraq, the only question is, who can we turn the country over to?
After the Thanksgiving Day Massacre of Shiites by Sunnis, President Bush should go on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and give an interview headlined: “If I did it, here’s how the civil war in Iraq happened.”
MORE
http://tinyurl.com/y9yp5v
Reposted
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
No One to Lose To
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 25, 2006
In Iraq, the only question is, who can we turn the country over to?
After the Thanksgiving Day Massacre of Shiites by Sunnis, President Bush should go on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and give an interview headlined: “If I did it, here’s how the civil war in Iraq happened.”
MORE
http://tinyurl.com/y9yp5v
Reposted
Saturday, November 25, 2006
No One to Lose To: MAUREEN DOWD - A Civil War?
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
No One to Lose To
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 25, 2006
In Iraq, the only question is, who can we turn the country over to?
After the Thanksgiving Day Massacre of Shiites by Sunnis, President Bush should go on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and give an interview headlined: “If I did it, here’s how the civil war in Iraq happened.”
MORE
http://tinyurl.com/y9yp5v
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
No One to Lose To
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 25, 2006
In Iraq, the only question is, who can we turn the country over to?
After the Thanksgiving Day Massacre of Shiites by Sunnis, President Bush should go on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and give an interview headlined: “If I did it, here’s how the civil war in Iraq happened.”
MORE
http://tinyurl.com/y9yp5v
Monday, November 20, 2006
For West Bank, It’s a Highway to Frustration
November 18, 2006
For West Bank, It’s a Highway to Frustration
By GREG MYRE
ROAD 60, West Bank, Nov. 14 — For four years, the separation barrier Israel has been building just inside the West Bank boundary has drawn protests from Palestinians and international censure for the hardship it imposes on their movement and access to jobs and land.
But getting much less notice have been parallel and perhaps even more restrictive measures imposed by the Israeli military much deeper inside the West Bank. The internal checkpoints and barriers on roads have increasingly limited movement, something Palestinians say they find especially grating, because they are not trying to enter Israel, only to go from one Palestinian area to another.
MORE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/world/middleeast/18westbank.html?hp&ex=1163912400&en=1709ddf877576fb2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I detest The NYT. Did you know Morgan Stanley recommends selling NYT stock?
For West Bank, It’s a Highway to Frustration
By GREG MYRE
ROAD 60, West Bank, Nov. 14 — For four years, the separation barrier Israel has been building just inside the West Bank boundary has drawn protests from Palestinians and international censure for the hardship it imposes on their movement and access to jobs and land.
But getting much less notice have been parallel and perhaps even more restrictive measures imposed by the Israeli military much deeper inside the West Bank. The internal checkpoints and barriers on roads have increasingly limited movement, something Palestinians say they find especially grating, because they are not trying to enter Israel, only to go from one Palestinian area to another.
MORE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/world/middleeast/18westbank.html?hp&ex=1163912400&en=1709ddf877576fb2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I detest The NYT. Did you know Morgan Stanley recommends selling NYT stock?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)