Over the years, I found it becoming overly partisan. So much that I am not too fond of the Op-Ed columns any more. Even though I have the yearly TimesSelect membership, which I bought exclusively for the access to the Op-Eds. Figured 49 bucks a year is not so bad to read some of the best minds in the world at the time. However, as I said, I have almost stopped reading the Op-Ed columns. I used to detest William Safire's politics but now that he has retired I think I miss his view point. If for nothing else, it provided a different way of seeing the same things. Another great aspect of Safire's writing was the impeccable language (Did I spell that correctly?). There was no name calling of people he did not like. There was hardly any preaching of any sort. Anyway, I digress.
Even though I have stopped reading the NYT Op-Eds, I still am a regular reader of the Times. Every morning I scan the website when I can. This morning, I was wondering why it is that I still read it, when I can read Google News for news and MSNBC or the Washington Post for analysis, since those are free (my yearly subscription is ending in May, and I will be in India at the time, so no point in renewing). All this of course while I was reading the paper. While browsing the paper, I found out why.
Case in point. Go through this article. See something different? Nope? Ok, let me show you in detail.
".........to inflict losses on the crusader West, especially to its economic infrastructure with strikes that would make it bleed for years," Mr. Zawahiri said. "We have to prevent...........
There's the regular bullshit that we hear from our man Ayman. But notice the Times still calls him Mr. Zawahiri. This guy is the among the most wanted guys in the world. In the eyes of the world (a majority at least) he should be caught and given the quickest justice possible. Go through any other news site, and you will see his name. But no "Mr." prefixed. I was intrigued so I went checking for the other usual suspects. Bin Laden, Saddam Hussain, Kim Jong Il. (Note to Kim, you should change the "Il" part. People think you are Kim Jong the second. And as every one knows, there's no one quite like you. "Ill" suits your personality a lot better, and it's better according to Bollywood numerologists). Same story. All of them "Mr." - a couple of occasions, in the pre-invasion days, Saddam was even President Hussain. (Another note to KJI: Are you Mr. Il or Mr. Jong Il?).
Is the NYT so decent, that it cannot offend even the most reviled bunch of characters in the world?
I think that is the problem with liberals in this world. Since liberalism believes in the welfare of the individual, it is totally incapable of offending anyone. Hence, the effort to appear balanced on everything. Since balance is more important to them than anything, it somehow appeals to my Libran mind. But that's another story. The strife for balance makes them go overboard in trying to show both sides of the story. And, therefore a sitting duck for conservatives, who have no qualms in offending anyone. It is for this balance, therefore that they appear to appease the terrorists.
Though, there is a fallacy in the reporting. Our man Ayman is actually a medical doctor. So shouldn't he be called Dr. Zawahiri? Shouldn't you apologise to him, Bill Keller?
Now, wouldn't that make Ann Coulter's day!!
No comments:
Post a Comment