A tale of two liberal papers

Ed Lasky
The Washington Post may be liberal, but it is fair. Unlike the New York Times, which has become a left wing propaganda sheet. A WaPo editorial today condemns the Democratic demagoguery in Iraq.

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that "it's a position I'd like to see us in."
The difference between the New York Times and the Washington Post: the irrational, partisan, emotional, and personal versus the rational, nonpartisan, intellectual and cooly impersonal approach to the issues of the day. Which makes more sense? Which mode of journalism should be emulated? The New York Times feeds the sort of frenzy that the Washington Post states is risking American' security.
The Washington Post may be liberal, but it is fair. Unlike the New York Times, which has become a left wing propaganda sheet. A WaPo editorial today condemns the Democratic demagoguery in Iraq.

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that "it's a position I'd like to see us in."
The difference between the New York Times and the Washington Post: the irrational, partisan, emotional, and personal versus the rational, nonpartisan, intellectual and cooly impersonal approach to the issues of the day. Which makes more sense? Which mode of journalism should be emulated? The New York Times feeds the sort of frenzy that the Washington Post states is risking American' security.