Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
This isn't about the NYT, it's about whether or not the US is capable of, and interested in, running a PR campaign to promote its interests.

Shifting goalposts, some. My comments were clearly about the value of sources and our attitude to them, so, sorry, but for me it was about the NYT. (Or the Angry Arab or any other source). And you don't need to convert me on American PR. Or the NYT's role in it.

I did ask you to support your claim that the NYT wrote "any old nonsense" about Sharp, so thanks for providing some backing. I'm not sure it's conclusive, (there seem to be counter-arguments), but then, I'm not in this discussion to attack or defend Gene Sharp, rather to insist on standards we usually apply round here.


reports or opinions we are looking at should be judged on their merits. What we know of the source and how seriously we take it obviously enters into that judgement. But blanket dismissal or blanket approval shouldn't.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 12:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Considering that you've just dismissed all my sources your point is - what, exactly?

And no, this is not about the NYT as a paper - this is about the NYT is being used (again) to craft a useful but misleading narrative.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have dismissed all your sources? What are you on about?

And what I was saying, to which you replied, was about the NYT as a source, whether you like it or not.

My point is perfectly clear. Just read.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 03:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series