Yoshie wrote:
>
> That's to be expected in the corporate media. After all, the
> Washington Post does not exist to serve "us," it exists to serve
> "them." What is surprising, though, is that the coverage of anti-war
> activists in the Washington Post has been fairer and more favorable
> than what you get in the Nation, for instance. I'll take a Manny
> Fernandez and a Monte Reel over a Marc Cooper or a David Corn any day.
You know, David Corn hasn't written about the anti-war movement for the Nation. That piece people have been discussing appeared in the LA Weekly. Except for this recent labor/war piece, Cooper's work on the anti-war movement has also appeared in venues other than the Nation. Who actually has written about the anti-war movement for The Nation? Excluding Hitchens, who departed theatrically over this very issue? Katha Pollitt. Cockburn. And mostly, myself (though I've lately been focusing on other things). I don't think my own coverage has been unfair, and only some sort of neo-Politburo would see it as largely unfavorable -- certainly I always describe many positive things people are doing. Mentioning some of the problems does disqualify it from functioning as pure agitprop, but I can't say that bothers me. Not because I worry about credibility, just because I think there's already enough of that. But that is, I think, where our disagreement lies.
Liza