The issue of bias is a fruitless, dead end racket. So I'll focus on the latter of Chris Collins' points, namely the passive-aggressive notion that those knee-slappers at the Wall Street Journal are qualified to insinuate some sort of conspiracy theory regarding the publishing of a rival's editorial.
Beyond the pathetic nature of Toranto's argument is the obvious issue of hypocrisy. James Toranto is due for a good look in the mirror. Who exactly is he and his Journal ilk to insinuate anything negative regarding the practice of selective timing?
The Journal makes no secret about its favorship of the Bush camp, commonly
regarded among the literate, English-speaking world as one of the sleaziest, most untrustworthy administrations in recent memory (Nixon has officially been replaced as the poster boy for conservative shame). In supporting Bush, the Journal kind of waves its right to whine about the credibility of anybody's timing anywhere.
The propaganda wing of the Conservative Party, otherwise known as Tom Ridge, basically functions as nothing more than a selective paranoia meter to
offset untimely news and to strategically remind Americans that we need Bush.
The next chance you get to hear Tom Ridge speak, hone in on your inner James
Toranto and dig deeper for any questionable timing issues that might reveal the legitimate motivation behind a vague reminder of fear.
The difference between the Journal crying conspiracy and the Times saying what they always say, is that unlike the Bush Administration, at least the Times is forthcoming in its message and motivations. Shame on James Toranto for his inability to differentiate between the two and whining about selective timing when his administration of choice is soiled in a culture of just that.
Respond to this posting
Back to top