We are on the verge of making the planet uninhabitable for human life. We are coming to the end of the age of petroleum. And trees should die to tell us that a right-wing president would appoint right-wing supreme court justices? Oh. My. Gawd!
OK, first, if that's all you think the article said, you didn't read it very closely. Or at all.
But I think the core of the issue is something else -- it seems that anything that isn't about climate change is by your definition "not serious" and thus unworthy of publication. I'll grant you that the Post doesn't cover climate change well enough, or often enough (a criticism that could fairly be leveled at almost any newspaper on the planet), but there are other things to talk about that are no-less-legitimate subjects for reporting or debate.
Oh, and I'm still waiting to have you explain how that Egypt article is patronizing. And to whom.
How did that happen? Well, one thing that happened was that the Post, in its "wisdom," thought that climate change wasn't about science but was just another political story. So instead of doing something useful, we are trapped by their James-Inhofe-just-might-have-a-point mindset.
We are talking about criminal levels of irresponsibility here.
Now YOU may think the Post is a pretty good paper. I am certain the publishers thank you for your patronage--goodness knows, their readership is slipping by the day. But try getting out and reading papers from the rest of the world and you will certainly discover that the Post is barely above My Weekly Reader in seriousness and content.
And BTW, if you cannot figure out why the article on Egypt is patronizing for yourself, try not traveling outside USA until you do. You are an international incident just waiting to happen. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
And BTW, if you cannot figure out why the article on Egypt is patronizing for yourself, try not traveling outside USA until you do. You are an international incident just waiting to happen._
Try reading the European Tribune so that you won't be a blog incident waiting to happen.
In terms of criminal neglect with regard to climate change - I'm not convinced a smooth transition was ever in the cards, and I'm not talking about the newspapers, I'm talking about us as a species.
you are the media you consume.
But it would have at least HAPPENED if the Post took climate change as seriously as a presidential blow job. Or if they had been so damn busy lying us into an invasion of IRAQ!
Let's be serious here. We can argue about my name calling--or we can demand that our papers get better. What REALLY annoys me about the Post is that the personalities act exactly the way kids did when I was in 7th grade. I'm sorry. We simply CANNOT meaningfully address the most serious problem of the species if our communication is in the hands of people who giggle about blow jobs.
What is so sad is how many here still want to defend these people. What?! Pray tell? will it take to make you angry with professional liars? who wouldn't know a serious story if it came up and kicked them in the groin? And how do we know the last is true--check out the Post coverage on climate change. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
What is so sad is how many here still want to defend these people.
We all vary in our thoughts on what an ideal world we want to live in looks like and how much of ourselves we want to invest to achieve that ideal. This is what you are arguing over with stormy.
I don't know stormy's views, but the reason I'm not outraged over the poor state of journalism is that I will be neither happy nor upset if humanity goes extinct, and I also decided a few years ago that if my life goal is to be happy, which it is, activism and such can only play a small part of that path. I will not grind myself down or get myself thrown in jail in order to help forge some sort of longer term stability for humanity. Nor will I apologize for this decision. I would like, and likely will, be working in the alternative energy industry soon. That's as far as I'll go.
And at least those folks were lying us into the disaster that is Iraq. For THAT, there is NO forgiveness. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
All I know is that I had a roommate in college from Bangladesh. He was VERY sensitive to slights--real or imagined. So I read "third-world" coverage through his eyes. I only read four paragraphs of that piece and decided it was just another Ugly American Special that Shamsul would NOT have liked.
Here endeth my conversation on this subject.
The topic here is whether the Post can effectively cover serious subjects. I say they cannot because they do not. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
The topic here is whether the Post can effectively cover serious subjects. I say they cannot because they do not.
... a theory that has obviously been thoroughly tested by the reading of four whole paragraphs.
Honestly, I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but you might want to quit while you're only a little behind.
I think I am quite capable of judging a newspaper story by the first four paragraphs. It is how they are designed to be read.
But hey, if you think the Post is a serious source of information, ignore me. Read it with passion. I just want better information. And I know we are all going to die if we don't get serious about real problems. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
ignore me
Oh, fear not.
A discussion on a tangent can serve as important example to flesh out your core argument.
Hell, I know I'm a poor judge on sensitivities, but living in a third world country does open up one's eyes. The anecdotal leaders in western press on describing "foreign" scenes are getting rather tiresome IMNSHO, but they generally serve as appetizer for an underlying point. It's the point that matters, not the anecdote, however patronizing that anecdote may feel to you.
