Post v. NY Times

As the class-list battle rages I’d like to point out the difference between the Post’s front page story, picture and headline and the New York Times article. The New York Times headline, “THE 2006 ELECTION; For Incoming Democrats, Populism Trumps Ideology,” reflects what is REPORTED in the story– that “in interviews with nearly half of them this week, the freshmen — 41 in the House and 9 in the Senate, including one independent — conveyed a keen sense of their own moment in history, and a distinct world view: they say they were given a rare opportunity by voters, many of them independents and Republicans, who were tired of the partisanship and gridlock in Washington.”

Dorian is right, sometimes the facts are biased. But the facts of the findings of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group were not highlighted by the post headline. The post picture and headline meets a bi-partisan study group’s authors and all of the Americans that agree with withdrawal with name-calling and finger-pointing because it conflicts with the publishers open political agenda. C’mon now–can you really say the Times article does the same?

The Digital Divide

I used to think the term described the gap between digital haves and have-nots. Now I know it is a snarky little virus found all around us.

You know what I mean, right? Curmudgeons in the newsroom v. innovators of great import. Covering a neighborhood v. chasing an issue. Phonograph v. tape deck. Problem is, this type of discourse is not only as old as innovation itself, its also boring and juvenile.

This conversation seems to be setting up an unnecessary divide. In my opinion, if you’re still up in arms about which publication tool is cooler, you’re behind the curve.

We should all know we’ve been blessed with choice.

I can offer no real solution to the snarkyness that pervades discussions of the online news era that is upon us. Except just to just stay out of it. After all, I am under 50.

Darfur: black on black violence escalates—-blogger booted out.

Today’s New York Times finally puts Darfur in the position of prominence deserved by all out war and genocide–front and center. Without the U.N.,  rebels backed by nearby Chad and  Eritrea, believe they have no choice but to fight and defend. Meanwhile the Sudanese government in Khartoum, which is always looking for reasons to reject pleas by the international community, sent the most powerful U.N. official in Sudan, packing.

Jan Pronk, U.N. envoy to Sudan, got booted out after he posted on his personal blog that the army was suffering defeats and low morale.

Looks like blogging isn’t so harmless after all. Is this the first blog debacle to directly alter the course of international diplomacy?

Once Again

CIA operatives have a good view of the killings in Sudan. They can watch genocide unfold from where they are stationed in Khartoum.

That’s because since September 11, the U.S. has considered Sudan an ally in the war against terror. Oil companies can also watch atrocities unfold from nearby. Numerous oil interests are served by keeping Sudan unstable and the continuous flow of oil is helping fuel the genocide.

…Just another case of follow the oil…

On the CUNY tip…

Since I’m on a CUNY roll, thought you might be interested to know (if you didn’t already) about tuition increases for undocumented students after September 11th.