Wednesday, May 24, 2006

# Posted 1:22 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

INVADING THE CLINTONS' PRIVACY: Lots of liberals are unhappy about this NYT article. In fact, even its author, Patrick Healy, recognizes that he's crossing other people's red lines:
Many of those interviewed were granted anonymity to discuss a relationship for which the Clintons have long sought a zone of privacy. The Clintons and, for the most part, their aides declined to cooperate for this article and urged others not to cooperate as well.
The contents, however, turn out to be less than titillating. The nastiest parts are actually the interpretive flourishes which reinforce the (not inaccurate) caricature of Hillary as a hyper-calculating pol.

But notice what isn't in this article: Any criticism of any ideas the Clintons have.
(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

I'm sorry, but the obsession with politics and political bias at the exclusion of, well, reading on this web site has grown exasperating. The article didn't criticize the Clintons' ideas because it was about their marriage, not their ideas. Not an illuminating article, granted, but the post about it sinks to a new level of soggy lameness.
Soggy lameness! It's not everyday we achieve a new low here at OxBlog.

Anyhow, I'm curious: Were Greg, Duncan and Matt's posts (to which I linked) also soggily lame because they focused on NYT bias?

And since the media play a dominant role in shaping the perceptions of millions of Americans, isn't it really important to talk about potential bias?
the other posts objected to the idea of yet another thin story about the Clintons' sex lives. They were at least reading the story for what it was. I submit that anyone who reads that story and reacts by wondering where the balancing criticism of the Clintons' views on foreign policy was is reading and interpreting media through as narrow and restrictive a lens as the most ideologically-driven reporters out there. This is bias-policing at the expense of common sense, and the greater dialogue surely suffers for it.
"But notice what isn't in this article:" News

There isnt criticism or support of Clinton's policies, in fact, there is just about nothing of any relevance at all to public policy or governing our nation.

Why is this on the front page?
This comment is mainly for the benefit of Anon #1/#2, but has some relevance to Anon #3.

Perhaps I should've stated this more clearly. I don't expect an article about the Clintons' marriage to contain criticism of their foreign policy.

My broader point was that criticism of the Clintons tends to focus only on personality and style, possibly because reporters don't have much to criticize about the Clinton's policy views.

In fact, the sort of balance we have in the media is aggressive criticism of Republican policies paired with aggressive criticism of Democrats' style.
Post a Comment