This from a friend. I make no comment.
Looking at ye NYT front page for today, I note, hardly for the first time: every single article which begins there has a malicious political slant, whether subtle or overt, & contributes to the known gliberal agenda, & has for its point of departure some "event" or "angle" that is essentially cooked, that would not be news if the NYT had not decided to make it news.
This is what we are up against in politics -- in the USA. Where it is better than here, because the fight isn't over.
And I am struck, over time, by the consistency, & humourlessness, of this malice. For here is the test: that in every issue, the subject of the attack is the person or institution that has behaved better; the beneficiary is the person or institution that has behaved worse. The argument itself is always fungible; & usually quite breathtakingly selective. In almost every instance, the big fact has been left out of the account, to let all the little facts breathe.
Without postulating the devil, it would be impossible to explain the NYT.
Without postulating the devil, it would be impossible to explain the NYT.
ReplyDeleteI just *love* that line. I'll need to remember it!