… qui vient de loin.
Ce post de David Monniaux sur cette folle de Rachel Marsden qui crée une France imaginaire dans laquelle des fonctionnaires syndiqués passeraient leurs journées au café à discuter de leurs vacances additionnelles est juste excellent. J’adore tout particulièrement son coup de grace qui illustre l’hypocrisie des prétendus conservateurs qui affirment tenir aux valeurs familiales mais promeuvent une politique destinée à détruire toute vie sociale.
Finally, I’m skeptical about Mrs Marsden’s conservatism. Conservatism tends to include a belief in so-called « family values » — most notably, that adults should be responsible in raising their children. Mrs Marsden seems to suggest that her alleged 15-hour-per-day work regimen is a model to be followed. Taking into account sleep, personal hygiene and quick meals, this regimen is sustainable only with a partner for handling house chores, or at least cleaning staff, andwithout caring for children.
Dieu ait pitié de l’âme de ce pauvre David Monniaux cependant, parce que quand je dis que Rachel Marsden est folle, je n’exagère pas, elle est vraiment folle. Et DM a eu l’imprudence d’écrire son post en anglais! Au moins, si on le retrouve dans la Seine sait-on dans quelle direction mener l’enquête 😉
As I documented back in May, a Nexis search of media outlets finds that « Roxana Saberi » — the American journalist detained for three months by Iran and then quickly given a trial and appeal — was mentioned 2,201 times during the first two months of her ordeal alone; by contrast « Sami al-Haj » was mentioned a grand total of 101 times during the first six years of his lawless detention at Guantanamo. The short imprisonment of an American journalist by a hated nation merits a full-on media blitz from the American press; the imprisonment of a foreign journalist by the U.S. Government merits almost nothing. Indeed, Stelter’s own paper ran countless stories on Saberi, but other than this very brief 2002 mention of an Al-Jazeera statement regarding al-Hajj, it did not publish a single news article mentioning his imprisonment until he was released.
So just consider the record here. The New York Times will frequently label what other governments do as « torture » but steadfastly refuses to use that term for what the American government did. It promiscuously accuses foreign countries of « human rights atrocities » but self-righteously objects when that term is applied to our own government even after it abducts, disappears, lawlessly imprisons, and tortures people even to the point of death. It accords extreme deference and respect to the claims of government officials even when those claims are patently false. In other words, The New York Times‘ journalistic practices create — either by design or effect — the false impression that torture and human rights abuses are things that other governments do, but not our own. Who is it exactly, then, who is departing from « journalistic objectivity »?