As I mentioned in my last post on this topic, NY Times readers do not bother to read many of the articles, but rely on the title to orient them to what is happening in the world. For example, a buyer in the Bloomingdales housewares department might take a look at the title “Assault on Christian Town in Syria Adds to Fears Over Rebels” and say to himself or herself: “Tch-tch, those Arab radicals are up to their old tricks, raping and killing nuns”, without reading the actual body of the article. Of course, it didn’t help the rebel cause when the photo appearing beneath the title was a funeral procession for three Christians who had recently been killed in Maaloula—even if they were the victims of government artillery.
One supposes that the editor who assigned the title to the article, as opposed to the reporter, must have understood that this would be a good possibility. As anybody who has been reading the NY Times lately understands, the paper is dead-set opposed to an American intervention despite hysteria at places like wsws.org over “another Iraq”. In the last article I commented on, it was revealed that the Youtube clip featured in the article that depicted government soldiers about to be executed as proof that you were dealing with utter savages was from a year ago. I ordinarily don’t bother with Twitter, but thought that this one that turned up in a Google search was worth sharing: Hey @nytimes your buried “correction” on the Syria rebels front page story reminds of good old days: Jeff Gerth, Jason Blair, Judy Miller. full: http://louisproyect.org/2013/09/11/reading-the-ny-times-on-syria-part-2/ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
