BAD: The prospect of The New York Times interviewing terrorists.
NOT BAD: A Bush Administration official interviewing terrorists.
What I don't really understand, though, is why (or so Putz implies) The Times speaking with terrorists -- ahem, insurgents -- would be a bad thing. Putz seems to believe that the American public isn't capable of skepticism and having a bullshit meter. (Also, for all the crap he gives "big media" on a regular basis, it's awfully odd that the idea of reporters, you know, doing their jobs spooks the professor. Remember the hackles raised by those affable Minnesota lawyers when The L.A. Times had the temerity to speak with a North Korean? I do.)
Reality doesn't support this. It would appear that, if Bush's poll numbers and rapidly diminishing support for Gonzo are any indication, the majority of Americans know what's what.
UPDATE: This is too rich! Putz links to a post by Neal Boortz, who says, "Liberals love to paint conservatives as being ignorant, stupid, obtuse, mindless, irrational and, on occasion, retarded." (I don't disagree, although I quibble with "on occasion.") Isn't going to the mat for Gonzales, by definition, all of these things? Or is President Bush no longer conservative?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment