NYT ediorial page and the

By

The New York Times editorial page cannot bring itself to use the word "Bush" when reporting positive developments. Instead of using the "B word" it praises "Washington."

The New York Times editorial page lambastes Bush by name at every opportunity when reporting bad news. Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush is a failure, Bush is leading us to disaster. You get the idea.

Now that the Administration is practicing the type of diplomatic policy the Times has called for — multilateralism — by relying on the IAEA and the UN to stop the Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Do they hail George Bush? Do they give him credit by name? No

Instead, some amorphous entity called "Washington" gets the credit. Washington? The name can be synonymous with Congress, no? The Times seems to be engaging in some wordplay to avoid giving credit to a man they loathe, George Bush. It is Orwellian

Ed Lasky  2 08 06

The New York Times editorial page cannot bring itself to use the word "Bush" when reporting positive developments. Instead of using the "B word" it praises "Washington."

The New York Times editorial page lambastes Bush by name at every opportunity when reporting bad news. Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush is a failure, Bush is leading us to disaster. You get the idea.

Now that the Administration is practicing the type of diplomatic policy the Times has called for — multilateralism — by relying on the IAEA and the UN to stop the Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Do they hail George Bush? Do they give him credit by name? No

Instead, some amorphous entity called "Washington" gets the credit. Washington? The name can be synonymous with Congress, no? The Times seems to be engaging in some wordplay to avoid giving credit to a man they loathe, George Bush. It is Orwellian

Ed Lasky  2 08 06