...what I'm most eager to see in the next 24 hours is the story from the New York Times explaining that Chas Freeman has been forced to withdraw his nomination as a result of a controversy they never even covered.I found the link here...it's from a WS blog entry by Michael Goldfarb. Anyway...I thought, no, that can't be true. Can it? Surely the NY Times had some coverage of Freeman's freakish views before he dropped out?
Well, no they didn't, and don't call me Shirley...a search for "chas freeman":
And a search for "charles freeman":
Gabriel at AoSHQ has more.
1 comment:
It wasn't just the NY Times that chose not to cover it, check this Mark Steyn post from The Corner.
>>Don't read all about it! [Mark Steyn]
I'm glad to see the back of the Saudi shill Chas Freeman, but I wonder what Mr and Mrs America will make of it tomorrow morning, reading for the very first time how the "Outspoken Former Ambassador" (as the AP's headline has it) was scuttled by a controversy their newspaper saw fit not to utter a word about.
As far as I can tell, the only papers in America to so much as mention the Freeman story were The Wall Street Journal, Investors' Business Daily, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Augusta Chronicle, and The Press Enterprise of Riverside, California.
But if you rely for your news on The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Detroit News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Miami Herald, or The Minneapolis Star-Tribune - just to name a random selection of American dailies currently sliding off the cliff - the end of the story will be the first time you've heard of it.
The US newspaper has deluded itself that it's been killed by technology. But there are two elements to a newspaper: news and paper. The paper is certainly a problem, but so is the news - or lack of it. If you're interested in news, the somnolent US monodaily is the last place to look for it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Post a Comment