An important semantic development of the past decade that is closely related to the doublespeak of moderateness and extremism is the new usage of the concept of “special interests.”
The New York Times, 1917–2017
The United States outclasses Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, in both the number, and frequency of resort to violence, in their interventions in foreign elections.
It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex
In short, in the 2016 presidential election the U.S. citizenry did not have an effective choice of a candidate who would turn away from the permanent war system and corporate welfare state; that is, one who had any chance of winning
who is going to contain the United States? The U.S. political system has failed its populace and the world and has imposed no brakes on the war machine
Sullivan claims that the NYT has and should maintain “abiding attention to society’s have nots.” To the war on labor and decline of labor unions, which they have scanted for years?
The United States has been intervening and fighting wars abroad almost continuously since World War II. This has involved frequent aggressions, using standard definitions of the word, with many of them extremely destructive. But these cannot be designated “aggression” in our well-honed propaganda system
In Part 1, I began with a case where the New York Times belatedly acknowledged that it had failed to print news fit to print, news which, not coincidentally, contradicted a party-line theme the editors had enthusiastically and uncritically supported five years earlier
The daily front page claim by the management of the New York Times that they provide “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is comical in its audacious scope. “All” covers an awful lot of ground, and if pressed the editors might even concede that something “fit to print” might occur in places not covered by their journalists or correspondents