Sunday's Journal (J) achieves new heights of mediocrity. Section A spends over a FULL PAGE on a story about a Texas man who (gasp) falsified his identity so that he could play in a couple of celebrity golf tourneys. Really! One cannot make this stuff up.
It is a miracle that the foundations of Western Civilization held in the face of such catastrophe.
Why should the J print valuable information, when they can spend a FULL PAGE investigating celebrity golf tourneys?
Sigh . . .
Sunday, September 23, 2007
War: What Casualties?
In the first three days of September, seven Americans have been killed in Iraq, but you would never know it from reading the Journal (J). US casualties have either gone unmentioned or were just one sentence buried in other stories. The history of the war, as told by the J, is almost completely missing. Afraid of the death, blood and pain of the war, the J refuses to show images that would document American and Iraqi deaths as well as the huge numbers of badly wounded and displaced. Why? The J follows the blind dictates of its antiquated, conservative publisher, a staunch Republican. Pictures might reveal the truth of this senseless, stupid, futile destruction of so many young people.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Journal Beats Drum for MORE WAR!
The Journal(J) continues to beat the Iraq war drum while minimizing the war’s costs, particularly the sacrifice of eight brave U.S. troops yesterday.
After yesterday’s Journal front page gave prominent coverage to Bush, his intention to keep the surge going and “progress” in Iraq, today’s front page IGNORED the death of EIGHT U.S. soldiers, burying the story on page three in three small paragraphs at the end of an article that was mostly about other Iraq issues.
However, the J gave top front page coverage to a very tentative, preliminary plan to bring water to Santa Fe, not to mention a totally unimportant story about a B-52 flying around with (gasp) nuclear weapons on board. What a shocker!
To put this into perspective, imagine what the Journal would do if EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS WERE KILLED? Imagine the banner headlines, multiple stories draped in black with pictures of the slain, the dead’s biographies and intimate and, if available, the gory details.
RESPONSIBILITY: The J’s refusal to meaningfully cover the details of this war’s cost (in blood and treasure) make it’s editors partially responsible for the continuation of this brutal, useless war, not to mention its unimaginable costs.
Oh, and 44 Iraqis were killed as well. Iraqi deaths are twice as high this year as last. Hmm . . . I guess the J could cover that, too.
Sigh.
Sigh.
After yesterday’s Journal front page gave prominent coverage to Bush, his intention to keep the surge going and “progress” in Iraq, today’s front page IGNORED the death of EIGHT U.S. soldiers, burying the story on page three in three small paragraphs at the end of an article that was mostly about other Iraq issues.
However, the J gave top front page coverage to a very tentative, preliminary plan to bring water to Santa Fe, not to mention a totally unimportant story about a B-52 flying around with (gasp) nuclear weapons on board. What a shocker!
To put this into perspective, imagine what the Journal would do if EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS WERE KILLED? Imagine the banner headlines, multiple stories draped in black with pictures of the slain, the dead’s biographies and intimate and, if available, the gory details.
RESPONSIBILITY: The J’s refusal to meaningfully cover the details of this war’s cost (in blood and treasure) make it’s editors partially responsible for the continuation of this brutal, useless war, not to mention its unimaginable costs.
Oh, and 44 Iraqis were killed as well. Iraqi deaths are twice as high this year as last. Hmm . . . I guess the J could cover that, too.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)