Howler: Note How NY Times Headlines Paint Edwards? "Rich Slick Lawyer!"

[BurtWorm]

I noticed this too--then again, you'd have to be braindead not to notice. Will the NY Times run a piece about how stinking rich Bush-Cheney are? Doubt it!


http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070704.html


So there they go again, dear readers! This headline reflects the silly games the New York Times just won’t stop playing. But don’t feel bad—The Phantom could have struck even harder. “KERRY CHOOSES EDWARDS, SAYING LAWYER IS SLICK” would have been even less flattering.


NOTE: That’s pretty much how the Times’ page A15 reads. Is John Edwards a richwealthylawyer? The Times seems to want you to know:

Headline on Eric Lichtblau piece: THE WEALTH FACTOR/Well-Heeled Running Mates

Sub-headline on Sheryl Gay Stolberg piece: Very wealthy, but coming off as a regular guy

Headline on Richard Oppel piece: Kerry Gains Campaign Ace, at Cost of Anti-Lawyer Anger

If you don’t know that Edwards is a richwealthylawyer, you haven’t yet read A15.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

1. Wow. When did Daily Howler change its layout?

Must have been in the last day or two. I need time to get used to this.

[BurtWorm]

3. I don't think it looked like that yesterday.

And I need to get used to it too. It doesn't feel quite so home made as it used to.

[Th1onein]

2. God, I just love Michael Moore!

COURIC: You have people eating in outdoor cafes. But even people, Michael, who are vehemently opposed to the war would tell you Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical despot—

MOORE: Mm-hmm.

COURIC: who killed people—

MOORE: Mm-hmm.

COURIC: for absolutely no reason.

MOORE: That’s correct.

COURIC: A murderer.

MOORE: Mm-hmm.

COURIC: And wouldn’t your movie have been better balanced if you had at least included some about Saddam Hussein’s own reputation?

MOORE: You guys did such a good job of telling us how tyrannical and horrible he was. You already did that. What—the question really should be posed to NBC News and all of the other news agencies: Why didn’t you show us that the people that we’re going to bomb in a few days are these people, human beings who are living normal lives, kids flying kites, people just trying to get by in their daily existence? And as the New York Times pointed out last week, out of the 50 air strikes in those initial days, the—we were zero for 50 hitting the target. We killed civilians and we don’t know how many thousands of civilians that we killed. And nobody covered that. And so for two hours, I’m going to cover it. I’m going to—out of four years of all of this propaganda, I’m going to give you two hours that says here’s the other side of the story.

Moore’s explanation was quite well known—if anyone wanted to bother knowing it. But out in the leafy suburbs of Boston, Ellen Goodman was very disturbed. Surrounded by proles who were rooting for Moore, she’d been forced to look at a boy in Iraq. Why would that make a liberal scribe mad? We’ll continue to ponder all week.