bitter sanity

Wake up and smell the grjklbrxwg, earth beings.

Monday, July 05, 2004

[posted by jaed at 9:50 AM]
Paragraph found in an NYT article
The NYT today has an article on security preparations for the Democratic and Republican conventions. Fears of terrorism, possible disruption in NYC and Boston, etc. Paragraph four is this:
New York is regarded as a higher risk than Boston by counterterrorism officials because President Bush is a Republican and because of consistent intelligence.
And that's it. No explanation, no discussion, no supporting quotes for the allegation. Dropped into this story, the bare assertion that the Republican convention, qua Republican, is more likely to be attacked by terrorists.

I mean, it's not like the NYT is shy about putting analysis into its news coverage. Why are Republicans more likely to be attacked? The argument could be made that the Rs are more likely to pursue the war, certainly. But doesn't that deserve a sentence or two of explanation, if that's the point the writer is making?

(My paranoid side has spoken up, pointing out that this may be a bit of ground-preparation in case of an attack during the Republican convention. The accepted NYT wisdom then becomes, "It's their fault for bringing their dangerous selves here! The Republicans had no right to selfishly risk New York! They should have held their convention in Houston or somewhere, where the only ones hurt would be other Republicans!" I think my paranoid side is getting maybe a wee bit spooked by the spike in partisanship in the country lately.)

Powered by Blogger




Past archives