You know how I love the blogosphere, and I hope you'll pardon my preaching, but here's another example of what makes it great.
I usually start my day off with a look at the web edition of the New York Times. Sometimes, for whatever reason, some of the front page stories don't seem as important to me as they must have to the editors of the Times.
Take, for example, today. One of the lead stories was an article headlined "Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in '06, Bush Team Says." I read it, sort of, experienced MEGO, and moved on. Just another dutiful piece of stenography summarizing administration pre-spin before the big "new way forward" speech, I thought.
Later today, my Bloglines notifier pinged me, and among the new posts was The Washington Monthly's take on the article. This post, in turn, quoted another post, the second one by Josh Marshall.
One of Marshall's lines not quoted by the WM was his opening sentence:
I don't know if the basic gist of the New York Times piece on what happened in Iraq in 2006 will get picked up.
Marshall was exactly right, at least in my case. I had missed it entirely, but as soon as I read his words, the original Times article came right back: it does, in fact, document the Bush Administration's latest search for a scapegoat for the Iraq mess. The Times was too polite to beat me over the head with this, so I'm happy that others didn't hesitate to employ the required club.
We all know the value of hearing competing points of view on any issue. It's a bit more subtle, but I find it equally important to hear others' reactions to a particular story. It's hard to read everything as critically as I'd like.
Thanks, bloggers.
Update: Josh Marshall posted a link to Greg Sargent's post, which details Bush's abrupt turnaround on the new scapegoat. I can't have too much sympathy for a guy who was such a corporate stooge, but it does hurt a little to watch Casey getting the bat.
No comments:
Post a Comment