corrente

I don't know why I keep reading the Times, I really don't. (Except for Paul Krugman, and Metropolitan Diary.) It's a sort of horrified fascination. It reminds me of that Laurel and Hardy movie, where Stan and Ollie are moving a piano. You want to say, "No! Don't try to move the piano down the fifty-flight stair!" but they do anyhow, and of course they lose control of the piano, and down the hill the piano goes, jangling and pinging and twanging. And disintegrating. Just like the Times. There's been a lot of jangling and pinging and twanging on the Op-Ed pages lately, and Kristof provides a prime example of it today. In an otherwise unexceptional piece about the administration's ignorance of anything Iraqi, Kristof writes:

I'm not a big fan of Al Jazeera, which tends to be emotional and nationalistic.
(via the poor old Pulitzer light and increasingly marginal not-the-Los AngelesTimes)

Well.

Maybe Kristof can tell me what, in the run up to the war, the US press was, other than "emotional" and "nationalistic"? And utterly enabling of the Bush agenda for war? Sheesh!

UPDATE Alert reader sid the fish has an excellent desconstruction of the way our "free press" covered the story of pulling down Saddam's statue. Not a pretty sight.