Random commentary and senseless acts of blogging.
The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement.
Prisoners of Azkaban
Friday, April 25, 2003
The Dogs of War
A long post at Oxblog makes the long-since cliched argument that the NY Times displays liberal bias. The offending article is here; the offense committed seems to be that it actually refers, repeatedly, to Iraqis being killed. The level of bias displayed by this article is truly appalling - why, this far left propaganda actually claims that people get killed in wars. It even makes the outrageous assertion that some of those killed are noncombatants.
I mentioned in an e-mail discussion with blogger Al Barger that images of a basic reality of war, killed and maimed humans, were almost totally absent from war coverage in the US media. The coverage was deliberately antiseptic, and it matched the language that was being used to describe it. With all those 'surgical strikes', surely the main result of the war was healing injured Iraqis.
The Times has been guilty of violating that informal embargo on suggesting that the war was in reality violent. That is enough for Mr Adesnik to find a pervasive "anti-military prejudice". He doesn't actually question the accuracy of the article, but the fact that the Times is telling the truth when other publications have the good taste not to mention it is apparently adequate proof of their bias.
On the plus side, without reading Oxblog I would never have known that those persons rumored to have done the nasty with the late Princess Di were guilty of treason under British law.