| |
|
The New York Times, traditionally viewed as the liberal Laurel to the Washington Post's sternly conservative Hardy (for those of you who are not residents of the US or were born under a rock), has been almost as startling jingoistic and supportive of the current administration as any other American news source during the past two shameful years. However, as the Presidential election nears, the Times seems to be taking a much more overtly leftist, or at least Democratic stance. The recent stories on Kerry and his campaign are one example. The gleefully front-page features on the startling (as far as the Bush administration is concerned) lack of WMDs in Iraq and the hopeless quagmire that the invasion has become seem to reflect this quite clearly, as well as this image of George Bush in Wisconsin from today's paper (July 15th, 2004):
This image was taken for this article (the link will probably go nowhere tomorrow, sorry).
Why did the Times seemingly become complicit in supporting the worst administration that this country has ever had, and why has it decided that now is the time to reclaim its position as the voice of the moderate left? Or am I nuts, and the Times has been promoting anarchist flag-burnings in front of the Capitol the entire time that the US Army has been destroying the Muslim world? |
|
|
