>>> kirsten neilsen <kirsten at infothecary.org> 04/23/99 09:12PM >>>
thanks for the lesson in media criticism. i have, however, read
parenti's book and many others as well. and, gasp, i even understood
them. thus i am well aware that the nyt is not a vessel of truth and i
read everything critically, especially the new york times. but the kinds
of media obfuscation parenti and others generally point to runs much
deeper than simply making stuff up, e.g. the example below. that's the
one thing they generally don't do -- they misinterpret, they slant, they
omit, they obscure, etc., but they usually stop short of fabrication.
(((((((((((
CB: Right. Good liars don't lie most of the time, only on critical points. But they will make something up if necessary. In this case , all they had to do was mischaracterize the father's earlier answer or pose a question to him of a certain type as is done in polling, a question for which it is difficult to answer without whatever. And here is a man who has just had his son murdered , so he is not necessarily focussed on niceties of grammar.
one might ask why the nyt felt it important to relate the father's feeling that his son was targeted for reasons other than his race. that is reading critically. and that would be a fair question from you, i think, and much more effective than suggesting that i believe every thing i read in the nyt. (((((((((((((((((
CB: whatever.
CB
Charles Brown wrote:
>
> Just because the NYT says it , doesn't mean it is true. As a matter of > fact if the NYT says it , it should be consider critically.
>
> See for example, _Inventing Reality_ by Michael Parenti
>
> Charles Brown
>