Monday, November 06, 2006

I'm confused...

The New York Times called for the deferment of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's execution, saying Iraq had not received "full justice."

The newspaper, which is opposed to the death penalty, said Iraq not only needed to hold Saddam fully accountable for his atrocities but also to heal and educate the nation he "ruthlessly divided."

No real surprise here. But my issue isn't with the stance the NYT is taking, but rather the fact that it's taking a stance. How is a newspaper "against the death penalty?" I am opposed to this sort of thing. I am opposed to newspapers endorsing a candidate--whether Republican, Democrat or third party. What happened to the good ole days when the editorial page said, "the views expressed on these pages are strictly the opinions of the writers and do not reflect the opinions of the NYT (or whatever newspaper it happens to be)?" I just don't get it... How are we to feel that we're getting a straight story if the newspaper is already slanted in favor of one group or another. There are no reporters any more, only commentators and analysts.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home