More nonsense
November 16, 2000 8:17 PM Subscribe
More nonsense from everyone's favorite biased website.
They screw up their own point of course:
"The surge of presidential candidates in the wake of Revision 11 had little impact on counties that use more sophisticated voting procedures and don't have to worry about crowded ballot space."
The problem is with the outdated voting procedures, not with third parties.
They screw up their own point of course:
"The surge of presidential candidates in the wake of Revision 11 had little impact on counties that use more sophisticated voting procedures and don't have to worry about crowded ballot space."
The problem is with the outdated voting procedures, not with third parties.
I don't think Salon is particularly biased in one way or the other. Rather, they get heavily biased people (both/all ways!) to write sometimes incendiary articles.
posted by daveadams at 8:48 AM on November 17, 2000
posted by daveadams at 8:48 AM on November 17, 2000
I don't know -- I think they did a pretty good job as a mouthpiece for Clinton during the impeachment nonsense. Whether you think they were right or wrong, there seemed to be a pretty consistant party line there, paranoid Republican David Horowitz notwithstanding.
posted by snarkout at 9:05 AM on November 17, 2000
posted by snarkout at 9:05 AM on November 17, 2000
Well, I think it was pretty clear regardless of your party affiliation that the impeachment proceedings were a ridiculous waste of time and money, even then. But maybe I assume too much. ;)
posted by daveadams at 10:55 AM on November 17, 2000
posted by daveadams at 10:55 AM on November 17, 2000
I think so, Dave. Sad, ain't it?
But what I mean to say is that just as the NY Times seemed to have a party line on Whitewater ("These allegations are shocking and disturbing, even if we don't actually have any proof -- and we're especially shocked and disturbed that Clinton hasn't confessed his sins in the absence of proof!"), Salon seemed to have one on the impeachment ("Making these allegations is shocking and disturbing -- and even if they are true, which they aren't, why do those mean, hypocritical Republicans mind?"). I won't mention the Wall Street Journal editorial page and other bastions of even-handedness.
The Times has an editorial page, so their slant is more immediately obvious, but you need only look at the tone of stories that run in a newspaper or magazine over a period of time to gauge where the editor and, possibly, publisher are coming from.
posted by snarkout at 11:17 AM on November 17, 2000
But what I mean to say is that just as the NY Times seemed to have a party line on Whitewater ("These allegations are shocking and disturbing, even if we don't actually have any proof -- and we're especially shocked and disturbed that Clinton hasn't confessed his sins in the absence of proof!"), Salon seemed to have one on the impeachment ("Making these allegations is shocking and disturbing -- and even if they are true, which they aren't, why do those mean, hypocritical Republicans mind?"). I won't mention the Wall Street Journal editorial page and other bastions of even-handedness.
The Times has an editorial page, so their slant is more immediately obvious, but you need only look at the tone of stories that run in a newspaper or magazine over a period of time to gauge where the editor and, possibly, publisher are coming from.
posted by snarkout at 11:17 AM on November 17, 2000
« Older Smellovision | Blogger is the answer. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rodii at 8:41 PM on November 16, 2000