If you are interested in the media response to (and responsibility for) the progress of the war in Iraq, may I recommend an article in today's New York Times, "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand". It's the more devastating for being sober in its tone.
The standard of investigative journalism in this paper --- supported by the exemplary American Freedom of Information regime --- is excellent. It's in signal contrast to the partisanship of papers in (say) the UK, and the self-importance and shallowness of papers in my own country.
4 comments:
Bruce, Laurence here. It's a great article. Certainly better than you would find in an English daily (although investigative reporting is a peculiar speciality of the Americans). As for Australian papers, even in the deepest, darkest December I can rely on a click to www.smh.com.au as a cure for homesickness, and I'm not the only expat who feels this way. Also, did you read much of NYT's coverage of the Pope's recent visit to the States? I thought it was excellent.
Hey Laurence: welcome to Blogger!
Deepest, darkest December is nice. I must say I struggle with the SMH: I read it to know what's going on in this city and this country, and (say) in East Timor and the Pacific, which don't really make it onto European and American radar. But thirty minutes spent reading it does feel like thirty minutes wasted. Skimming it on the web --- cherry picking --- is the best technique I've been able to manage so far. Still. I wish there were a better solution.
I've only caught some of the NYT coverage of the Pope's visit, which was good. I do try to scan the NYT every day, but sometimes it slips through the net.
As for the substance of the article, I've always liked your observation that the best argument for the Iraq war was the anti-war movement; and that it cut both ways. It's still true.
Do you know, I'd actually forgotten that comment. It's stood the test of time better than a lot of remarks on the war, if I say so myself.
Post a Comment