Friday, January 13, 2006

Surprise...BBC respects NYT

The BBC's Matthew Davis, in his superficial recap of Judge Alito's confirmation hearings, says:
Yet an editorial in the respected New York Times newspaper said there had
been a number of "quiet bombshells" that should give cause for concern.
Well, there's a shocker. The New York Times, the most prominent voice of liberalism in the US outside of the Democratic National Committee, home to such reliably hard lefty loons as Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich, is "concerned" about a conservative getting on the Supreme Court. This qualifies as news, how exactly? If the NYT had actually said that, despite its political disagreements with Alito, it had to acknowledge his manifest fitness to serve on the high that would have been worth noting.

But of course Davis (or his editors, if there be any) can't even put the NYT in its proper context by identifying it as a highly partisan voice of liberalism. No, to Davis it is simply the "respected" NYT. I guess if he respects its opinions, that settles the matter. Is there any need to wonder why he chose to mention the NYT instead of the Wall Street Journal, which editorialized that:
[The Democrats] can't touch him on credentials or his mastery of jurisprudence, so they're trying to get him on guilt by ancient association...[I]f this irrelevant arcana is the most his opponents have, he can start measuring his new judicial robes.
I suppose the WSJ is just not a respectable enough voice for the BBC.


Anonymous tired & excitable said...

Mark Steyn usually calls Dowdy "the elderly schoolgirl."

No need to waste much effort on a witless apparatchik like M Davis, though it is time, I think, to identify the BBC as "the despised British media monopoly."

NYT is in well-documented big trouble, unbeknownst to BBC viewers. Americans vote with their feet, fast.

Very un-Briddish, that.

In other news:
Arafat Still Dead...

11:28 AM  
Anonymous Natalie said...


The NYT has become such a tool for the Liberal Bush haters here in the US that of course the BBC would only cite that paper.

Keep up your great Blog.

6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember when the NYT falsly reported the Congress inquiry concluding that no links existed between Saddam & al-Qaeda.

Rhod Sharp on BBC R5Live exploded, a la Kinnock, that the newspaper of record, the newspaper of record, were condemning Bush for his misleading claims.

(I believe, the NYT later corrected the report & clarified that the inquiry had found only that no links existed between Saddam & 9/11 - but as that was at "page Z99", I don't suppose Sharp ever noticed it.)

7:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home