Friday, August 05, 2005

Our 2 Cents On Novak

Anyone on the blogosphere who hasn't seen the recent CNN clip with Robert Novak ought to. Although it doesn't provide the kind of shock value that the John Stewart appearence on Crossfire did, it's amusing because James Carville, the ragin cajun, seems to successfully get under Novak's skin and cause him to not only swear on live television but to earn a suspension from CNN, commonly referred to amongst conservative bloggers as the Communist News Network.

Although Carville was probably being his usual obnoxious self, which is becoming of TV hacks, what he said was very witty: "He’s got to show these right wingers that he’s got a backbone, you know. It’s why The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show ‘em that you’re tough."

Isn't it odd that a mainstream newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal has such a partisan, hateful editorial page? If you read the editorial page day after day, you'll realize that its rhetoric is really just the gilded version of the Rush Limbaugh show. They use bigger words and they maintain the paper policy of referring to people with a prefix (Mr., Ms., Senator etc.). However, their positions are considerably more venomous than is to be expected from this blue blooded, Dow Jones establishment. Moreover, when reading the Journal Op-Ed section, it seems that in order to apply for a column, one must identify himself as a Republican, a Conservative, or a Right-Winger.

This is unbecoming for the most circulated paper in the U.S. The Journal should take a note from its cross-town competitor, the New York Times, and balance its own ideology with its obligation to show different sides of issues. Opinions are a major part of the news. However, excluding one type of opinion is denying a large part of the news to the public.

8 Comments:

At 9:00 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:01 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

Now you're writing satire?

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger Jack said...

Which part did you interpret as satire?

 
At 11:01 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

You wrote:

"Isn't it odd that a mainstream newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal has such a partisan, hateful editorial page?"

"This is unbecoming for the most circulated paper in the U.S. The Journal should take a note from its cross-town competitor, the New York Times, and balance its own ideology with its obligation to show different sides of issues. Opinions are a major part of the news. However, excluding one type of opinion is denying a large part of the news to the public."

 
At 11:13 PM, Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

The Journal has been notorious for it's editorials for as long as I've known of the paper's existence (yes the paper was much heavier then and it wasn't actually made from paper). It's as if elves - evil, obnoxious, rabid, right-wing elves - came in at night to cobble them together. Because they don't easily jibe with the rest of the paper, which is much more measured.

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

Oh. And Novak should have shown more grace. That one should have been easy to laugh off, but Novak wasn't in a laffin' mood. He should have taken Carville up on it, offered to duke it out. Maybe do a Cowardly Lion bit, offer to take on Carville's whole family with one paw tied behind his back.

 
At 12:41 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

And the New York Times is best known for it's even handed ope-eds and opinion columnists?

Anyone with some specific examples from the WSJ or articles describing the Journal as having a "hateful editorial or venomous editorial page"?

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger Jack said...

The New York Times employs two conservative columnists at all times. It used to be David Brooks and William Safire, and now that Safire is gone they replaced him with another conservative named John Tierny.

The editorial page emphasizes constructive criticism and they often compliment the Bush administration. The WSJ, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on criticizing the biggest liberals possible, and as a result, they spend more time talking about Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton than is journalistically responsible.

Whereas the Times even endorsed Republican candidates in the 04 elections, the Journal is proudly partisan and castigates Republicans who "appease Democrats". I'll look for some examples.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter
Web Site Counters Who Links Here Listed on BlogShares