It is depressing to me that the New York Times is held up as a den of liberaldom. I understand why an outlet exposed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent (which you really should read) as a lickspittle sycophant of the elite and a ready publisher of propaganda is upheld as such a leftism rag. Firstly its not nearly as insanely right wing as other outlets so within its' context it is left wing, just not in real terms. Secondly it helps keep the overton window nicely to the right, casual observers who take a South Park-esque "truth in the middle" view of politics will think reality is a little further to the right than NYT paints, sympathisers of the left will think this is as left as political discourse gets in the US and rightists will be able to convince themselves their absurdly right wing views are a rational middle ground compared to the NYT's extremism.
But anyway, Oliver Stone's new documentary South of the Border looks at how the media, especially NYT, portray enemies of the US elite very negatively while happily overlooking crimes of US allies such as currently Colombia. As the title suggests this documentary focuses on America's former favoured colonial playground, South America and how its doing now the focus has currently shifted to the Middle East. So of course the NYT did its' "left wing" duty and attacked the film for attacking the "established view" or you know, pointing out how readily they spout propaganda. Stone and the documentary's writers offer a rebuttal in the second half of the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment