I was saying to Pam this evening that, had McCain drawn 200,000 members of the Berlin public to a speech whose audience stretched halfway across the city, I'd have thought that was a newsworthy event: I'd have had no grumbles, even though I disagree with the man's politics and in general hope he rots in wherever his wife so obviously wants him to rot in, had the US media given this event wall-to-wall coverage: it'd have been a historic moment.
So where the fuck does the beef come from in the McLame campaign that some of the mainstream media have the courage to report this event?
Incidentally, in my NYT headlines e-mail today, the only directly referenced story was a "balance" piece carping about the "lack of substance" in Obama's speech. I'd have been unaware of the NYT's nonpartisan report had it not been that a phrase of Obama's made it to the "Quote of the Day" slot.
And that's the best of the US mainstream media -- the venue that's supposedly the least biased towards the Repugs. Is it any wonder that, for news on US domestic and foreign policy, I consult the Independent, Guardian and BBC, plus the Oz newspapers?
As you remarked, it took three whole fucking days for the NYT to notice the Mississippi oil spill. That sort of delay was permissible in the 18th century, when communications were slow; today it smacks of deliberate policy.
How the fuck did Americans throw away their freedom? Historically it's always been a bit of an illusion -- something politicians boasted about while the lynch mobs howled their pathetic but psychopathic howl -- but from a few decades ago, maybe about the time the Washington Post had the courage to go up against a corrupt Adminstration to expose the Watergate scandal and an extraordinarily corrupt President, it started becoming real: it was there for the grabbing. Since then, stupid fat white guys in SUVs have traded cheap prices at WalMart for that fleeting freedom.
no subject
I was saying to Pam this evening that, had McCain drawn 200,000 members of the Berlin public to a speech whose audience stretched halfway across the city, I'd have thought that was a newsworthy event: I'd have had no grumbles, even though I disagree with the man's politics and in general hope he rots in wherever his wife so obviously wants him to rot in, had the US media given this event wall-to-wall coverage: it'd have been a historic moment.
So where the fuck does the beef come from in the McLame campaign that some of the mainstream media have the courage to report this event?
Incidentally, in my NYT headlines e-mail today, the only directly referenced story was a "balance" piece carping about the "lack of substance" in Obama's speech. I'd have been unaware of the NYT's nonpartisan report had it not been that a phrase of Obama's made it to the "Quote of the Day" slot.
And that's the best of the US mainstream media -- the venue that's supposedly the least biased towards the Repugs. Is it any wonder that, for news on US domestic and foreign policy, I consult the Independent, Guardian and BBC, plus the Oz newspapers?
As you remarked, it took three whole fucking days for the NYT to notice the Mississippi oil spill. That sort of delay was permissible in the 18th century, when communications were slow; today it smacks of deliberate policy.
How the fuck did Americans throw away their freedom? Historically it's always been a bit of an illusion -- something politicians boasted about while the lynch mobs howled their pathetic but psychopathic howl -- but from a few decades ago, maybe about the time the Washington Post had the courage to go up against a corrupt Adminstration to expose the Watergate scandal and an extraordinarily corrupt President, it started becoming real: it was there for the grabbing. Since then, stupid fat white guys in SUVs have traded cheap prices at WalMart for that fleeting freedom.