Posted by
Howard Roark on Friday, April 18, 2008 9:17:56 AM
I don't know what is more troubling. The fact that Time magazine desecrates the memory of those who fought on Iwo Jima, or that they now think that Biased and Unbalanced is OK for them. As Richard Stengel says in the article:
“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”
I doubt Congress is going to pass a new "Fairness Doctrine" to force Time to devote half their magazine to opposite view. They use the public mail system to diseminate their proganda, right?
At least Stengel is coming out and saying what the MSM has been doing for years. But are they really experts? Not to be mean here folks, but aren't the kids you remember from college that were in journalism slightly lacking in the 'expert' category? I thought that the main pull of majoring in journalism is that you didn't let hard studies get in the way of actually sitting around complaining.
As we come out of a really harsh winter, we see Global Warming turning into Climate Change as a way to explain away the lack of global warming since 1998. At the same time, the predictions of gloom and doom increase as just more and more scientists start to question and downgrade the impacts. The future doom and gloom has to increase since the desire to shift to a more socialist economy can be only sustained if there is some huge danger that can only be averted if we change from red, white and blue to just Red.