A. K. A. Loose Canon
Yes but no fear, News of the World has the Mail on Sunday dead orbiting around Mars where they are treated very well.
oooh! what does le monde say?
Le Monde says that the killing off of Brits is only another indicator of the wisdom of Socialism.
I forgot that you're a snob and an elitist if you don't take People Magazine and News of the World seriously.But as trashy as Le Monde is, or rather has become, it's still not a rag whose bread and butter is to pepper with inflammatory societal articles an endless stream of mindless details on the lives of celebs. Take heart: given the path it is taking, it shouldn't be too much longer till they get there. Hell, you might even start quoting it.
Le charme discret des death panels. Les pinkos se prennent le pied avec ca.
Charly quotes the New York times, and the Lancet, as trustworthy journals, and he now has issues with Le Monde? Three Harpies of a feather...
The people at the NY Times understand there is a difference bw editorial and news.
They do? That's news to me.
Well, they do to the extent that it is humanly possible. But if the frame of reference is Le Monde (or Fox for that matter), yes they really do.
No, Charly, they really don't. Really, really. Heck, why should I fight your "argument by "I say so" with the same kind of intellectual merde? I shouldn't. So let's take specific examples as to the storied traditions of the Old Gray Red Versaillean's separation of "all the news that's fit to print" from "editorial stance". Begin, let's say, in the hallowed "golden era", back in the heady days of the charming Reed and the magnificent Durant, as they wrote the articles out of the Soviet Union by which the NYT sought to shape American perception of what was going on with this newfangled Communism thing. Have you ever actually read those suckers? Now, once you have done so, tell me about that famous separation of article and editorial. But, in case you don't have the historical chops for that kind of long term look, just do a simple comparison of the articles in the NYT on the campaigns of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and current [not the editorial page, just the in body articles]. Once you've done so go ahead and spout about how "they really try" . They try about as hard as, say, ABC or NBC or CBS. That is, they try as hard as the bloody BBC.
Charly read Hegel this week and came in his pants, apparently.
Yes and you left out the bit when they happily morphed into Bush's war propaganda machine. But on a regular day, I wouldn't know which side they're on from reading their news. It's a different matter for the editorials obviously.
Bush's war propaganda machine? Hey, man, you sound like Pravda on a bad hair day, railing against the laughing hyenas of capitalism.
Surely you remember the casus belli that promptly fizzled when assertions that could have been investigated by the media came under scrutiny. The NYT did no better than Fox at that time.
surely you remember that the old war in iraq ended because saddam agreed to un inspections, etc. then saddam went and flouted that agreement. being in contravention of an agreement like that is a perfectly good casus belli and allows the war to recommence. duh, man.
How long was it going to take those nukular rockets to hit London ? I forget.
Charly is pining after Saddam. Duhh.
chuck: a lame sidestep. your point was a casus belli, and i supplied it. i can only guess that your next argument will involve the rest mass of the neutron or of justin bieber's balls.
BS roT, what you call a casus belli turned out to be a technicality that hardly convinced anyone at the UN ("coalition of the willing" excepted), and certainly not enough to get a vote passed. Besides, letting the inspectors in didn't prevent the war: the writing was on the wall and all that was lacking was a pretext.
Language says what the pinko says it says.
Charly pines after (Dominique Marie François René Galouzeau) de Villepin.
Who doesn't? I found him/her very entertaining.
Post a Comment