Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
- Fr. John
- The Rt. Rev. John H. Taylor is father of two, stepfather of two more, husband of one, and servant of the Mighty One.
BLOG is God spelled backwards, with an L and a B instead of D
-
-
-
-
A month before Election Day, I predicted…8 hours ago
-
Wonkette Movie Night: Scrooged9 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
LBCF: Tin men1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
Holy Longing4 weeks ago
-
-
-
Francis in Hungary1 year ago
-
-
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
Advent Bootcamp 20195 years ago
-
-
-
The Post-Easter Crash and Tech Week6 years ago
-
-
This Blog, R.I.P.7 years ago
-
-
-
Inclusive history7 years ago
-
-
The 2016 Polls Were OK8 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
The Years Of Writing Dangerously9 years ago
-
‘Lest we forget Jerusalem’11 years ago
-
-
-
PDP on Hiatus12 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 comments:
Hewitt’s column started off promisingly as he examined who was quoted by name in article, but ended up in Sullivan-bait SillyLand when he wrote about Obama and the supposed motives of The New York Times. Sigh. Time and again I read items written by conservatives where it seems to me that they hurt themselves and sometimes those for whom they are advocating, by association. When I got to the end of Hewitt’s article, I cringed for the country Hewitt was discussing. I don't know that Hewitt's column did it or his own country (America) or his party any favors.
That the New York Times’ article was poorly constructed doesn’t lead to Hewitt’s conclusion that the “left-wing Times has helpfully launched a wholly misleading meme.” (Why, oh why, do columnists sometimes pick apart an article as not proving what it purports to, only to fall into EXACTLY that trap of unsupported assertions in their own wrap up?) Here and in some of its other articles, I actually think the newspaper showed respect for the Tea Party in its effort to deconstruct it and look for nuance. That’s certainly better than than laughingly dismissing it as nothing but traditional rightwingers, same old same old. You know, the right that sometimes comes across on the airwaves and in punditry as people running around and squeaking “eek, aaack, we R doomed, panic city, ZOMG beat on the drums of fear,” no matter what the domestic or foreign policy issue. There’s potentially more to conservatism and perhaps even to some elements of the Tea Party than that. This is not the first time the NYT has tried to determine what it is. Hewitt would have done better to consider that. But, of course, that requires examining how one's arguments come across to a broad community. Much tougher than blaming "the media!"
Well said, MK. I posted Hugh's piece because I'd felt the article was weak and had meant to write about it myself. The reporter invited skepticism by speculating about incoming tea party-affiliated members instead of taking an extra day and calling a dozen of them and asking what they thought about the Middle East.
Post a Comment