Well, that is an important point against the NYT. And in favor of the WaPo. It does indeed have comics, although I believe it counts Doonesbury as an editorial cartoon, which I think is a sort of bias.
Also, Erik V. Olsen, I'm late but I wanted to say more power to you for your comment -- the NYT has sucked for years, and it's not just that Judith Miller is a hack with an agenda (or is that redundant?) but that, in fact, the entire NYT has for decades slavishly followed the government line (anyone remember how long it took them to jump on board re: Watergate?) and abdicated its role as the 4th estate/watchdog (if indeed the press in the US ever did really have that role after the 18th century ended).
I myself read the NYT articles because it is kind of amusing to see people use often very impressive language and style to make really mind-bogglingly stupid arguments (op/ed) or to paraphrase government spokespeople (news analysis).
Re the WP, their news section is not quite so editorially biased as the NYT's, especially in international analysis. However they are not consistently high quality. Some stories they cover well and others they don't.
My attitude is that if I read a news story by regular beat reporters for the WP (such as Mike Allen, Dana Priest etc.) I also try to read another version of it preferably from a non-US source (the Guardian online for example). That way I can see what the spin is, if any.
As for editorials, I don't really think the Post has that much of an edge on the Times. For good op/ed sections I don't know where you can go in the US. The only editorial guy I regularly read anymore that I have any respect for is Jimmy Breslin of Newsday (he's online). The other pundits have about a 50/50 or less chance of saying anything worth listening to and I find it really insulting to my intelligence that they somehow expect me to read them daily on the off chance they'll say something intelligent once a week. (Tom Friedman, MoDo, and others like that are who I am talking about.)
Several years ago my mother sent me Judith Miller's book, God has 99 Names. At this time I had been studying Islam for a period of several years and had been Muslim for only slightly less. I told myself that mom meant well and tried to read it. I have never yet been able to and it is sitting in pristine condition on the bookshelf.
I have never seen writing that so loudly screams "I have an agenda" as Judith Miller's. I could hardly get past the first chapter of her book. I can't read an article she has written. The only other journalist I feel this strongly against would be Friedman and even he did write a good book once (From Beirut to Jerusalem when he was middle east bureau chief for the newspaper of record).
It is so, so, so good to see her raked through the coals like this. I can't remember feeling such pure joy at the comeuppance of someone I despise, ever before. God, did she deserve it.
I am reminded of one of my favorite passages in Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody Egyptological mystery series, when she has Amelia Peabody say, "Revenge is sweet, says the old adage. Revenge is a feeling unworthy of a Christian woman, say the scriptures. In this case the scriptures err." Yes. The Muslim scripture too (it says that "mercy is better." No it isn't.)
This is so horrifying. I had no idea there was anyone in the US who can possibly deny the Unitarians as a religion. Isn't this the beginning of a slippery slope? What about religions that have multiple dieties? The US is fast heading into Taleban territory if you ask me. As a Muslim who is about as scared by Muslim fundamentalism as thinking Christians are concerned by Christian fundamentalism, it is truly disappointing to me that more people in the US are not up in arms about the fact that its greatest strength which is the Constitution and a basis in law unconnected to a specific religion or dogma, is being slowly dismantled.
Can someone please tell me how to set my browser so that I can read comments? On Making Light and Electrolite it loads the comments and then they suddenly disappear and I am left with just the blog post. It is really irritating since I am always as interested in the discussion as in T's or P's initial post. This only seems to happen on your blogs. Thanks.
As a practicing Muslim and a moderator of a few progressive Muslim discussion lists as well as an extremely liberal/left Democrat (who voted Nader in 2000 and will vote ABB in 2004) I am finding this discussion very interesting and timely.
I tend not to feel personally slighted by the anger that a lot of progressive/liberal people feel against religion per se that they express in comments. This is because I automatically assume that they are, as someone upthread eloquently described, sort of going through a 7-stage process after having been indoctrinated by some form of extreme religion and are still in "anger" or "blame".
Also if I heard a radio person referring to religious wackos or something like that I would not automatically assume that they are referring to religion (e.g., mine) or the religious (e.g., me) per se; but that they were referring to the people that I also find scary (like Falwell, or Osama Bin Laden, etc).
That said, I think a lot of religious people are a lot more sensitive than me (for their own reasons and based on their own experiences) and that their sensitivities deserve consideration.
The solution, as I see it, is that it would be ideal if all of us, the religious and the non-religious, would try to practice actually listening / hearing / understanding the other person rather than starting out on the attack based on our assumptions, which may very well be wrong.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 6 |
Total: 6 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Anna in Cairo:
Show all comments by Anna in Cairo.