> However, what does that say about where the 'mainstream' of the US
> actually is? Right of the NYT?
It certainly is, on a lot of issues.
> But look at the NYT on an important issue like the invasion of Iraq. I
> seem to remember them giving us a heavy dose of zio-liberals such as
> Kenneth Pollack (CIA analyst, Brookings zionist, think tank dweeb, and
> all-around ugly talking head on places like CNN) saying that it was
> NOW OR NEVER time to make war.
I couldn't understand at the time, and still don't, why the NYT was so gung-ho about the war in the run-up to it. Though it did cover the opposition, and the facts the opposition was based on, to some extent, it did seem to be consciously trying to follow the administration line. A lot of the problem is that organizations like the major news media companies are not at all transparent -- it's as hard to figure out why they do what they do as it was understanding the Kremlin during the USSR days.
> So, some difference of opinion, and that's some sort of mainstream
> even if we include the NYT, but I really don't know how to
> characterize the liberal corner of it, other than wishy-washy and
> misinformed on social issues, and predatory on foreign policy ones.
It should be obvious that the term "mainstream" covers a very wide range of positions and opinions, which vary a lot from issue to issue and day to day. It's the highly ideological left and right that have clearly defined positions.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile