Skip

GWB
August 24, 2003 3:10 PM   Subscribe

"By recklessly cutting taxes, President Bush has enriched the wealthy and neglected the poor, sent the federal budget deficit to record heights, and imposed a colossal financial burden on the coming generation. He has revived the culture wars by flaunting his Christian faith and by promoting traditional values. He has undermined public schools by supporting school choice. He has eroded the wall of separation between church and state by seeking federal funding for faith-based charities. He threatens to reverse decades of progress in civil rights by packing the judiciary with right-wing extremists. He has alienated our European allies with his crude cowboy diplomacy and provided a legitimate basis for anti-Americanism around the world. And he has knowingly deceived the American people in a matter of grave national importance by resting his case for war against Iraq on trumped-up charges about weapons of mass destruction." "That's a caricature", says Peter Berkowitz in a coolly favorable article about the current Presidency. 1st link via aldaily
posted by 111 (49 comments total)

 
Hell I'll beat everyone to it and mislabel this post as a troll. Troll!
posted by Stan Chin at 3:15 PM on August 24, 2003


Troll? You mean this guy's a welcher on online auctions/deals?
posted by Busithoth at 3:25 PM on August 24, 2003


Yet as his administration makes its mistakes, rolls with the punches, and adapts to changing circumstances, the president reveals himself to be a pragmatic conservative who knows in his gut that it is a liberal welfare state that he wishes to reform, and to conserve.

i really don't care how you label his conservatism. he's a thief, a liar, a crony and, did i mention liar? the article is timely - a form of conservative soma for fence-sitters to gobble down while the looters haul the swag away before their glazed eyes. ah yes, the pragmatic but deep down good hearted stumblebum, rolling with the punches toward a better world. mmmm! more koolaid please!
posted by quonsar at 3:27 PM on August 24, 2003


I'll beat everyone else to it and ignore Stan "What Gold Star" Chin. : )

I'm not overly impressed with the op ed. Berkowitz merely states how liberals see Bush and then counters with how conservatives see Bush. What seemed noticeable to me is the arguments against Bush make logical sense and are nearly obvious. The arguments in favor of Bush are a series of assumptions and reaches. Bush favors education? Well, he supports unfunded mandates and pushing the costs on over-burdened states. Bush isn't fighting in the'culture war'? Well, it's not like he's against gay marriage or civil rights. Oh, but he has black people in his government! Right, right. But what does that mean in the face of statements referring to "pakis" or atheists? The section saying the tax cuts are about creating a growing economy, not a give away to the rich was particularly amusing. News flash: TRICKLE DOWN DOESN'T WORK, no matter what you call it. Bush's tax cuts haven't radically changed the percentage of ramon noodle to real food in my cupboard, but I'm sure Ken Lay has extra money to stash in off-shore bank accounts this year.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:30 PM on August 24, 2003


This article is refuted by the facts on the 'ground.' Next.
posted by moonbiter at 3:34 PM on August 24, 2003


, but I'm sure Ken Lay has extra money to stash in off-shore bank accounts this year.

Hmm, is this Ken?

or is this Ken?
posted by clavdivs at 3:46 PM on August 24, 2003


"That's a caricature"

Yeah? Well if the caricature fits, wear it.

It fits.

posted by Twang at 3:52 PM on August 24, 2003


UPDATE:
Meanwhile, his company Spacely Sprockets is faced with a takeover attempt by some corporate raiders from Venus, which is apparently enjoying economic boom times. Mr. Spacely appeals to George to help him buy more stock to keep the company from falling into Venusian hands.

The plot thickens in every which way until the devastating news arrives that Venus’s economy has collapsed and the currency has been devalued. It is now worth a tenth of a penny on the dollar. The takeover attempt is held back but George is now faced with a mountain of debt. The whole story of the inflated Venusian currency sounds like Argentina today!


JETSON!
posted by clavdivs at 3:52 PM on August 24, 2003


I love some of these mealy-mouthed attempts to paint Bush as ' less moralistic, more live-and-let-live, than that of many traditional conservatives':

During the 2000 campaign he had little to say about abortion, affirmative action, or gay rights.

And as President, he has pushed forward judicial nominations (to paraphrase, in the mould of Antonin Scalia, whose opinion on the Texas sodomy law was, well, forthright) and implemented executive orders which show that he was simply holding his tongue. Not to mention a stupid, moralistic fudge on stem cell research. Yeah, by comparison with the theocratic right, he's moderate, but that's damning with the faintest of praise.

Bush is not cutting taxes to pay off the rich.

And yet, strangely, the rich benefit disproportionately from his tax cuts. Now, is this just the Law of Unintended Consequences, or... y'know, policy?

Peter Berkowitz teaches at George Mason University School of Law and is a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Now, call it ad hominem, but you don't get a research fellowship at the Hoover Institution without... well, a conservative columnist describes it as 'the famed think tank that recently has donated so many luminous minds to the Bush II administration.' What a pity that such charity appears to have gone begging. I'd be putting in a request for those 'luminous minds' back, since they're obviously gathering dust in a corner somewhere.

He serves as a part-time consultant to the President's Council on Bioethics.

Ah, that's why he doesn't mention the stem cell debate.
posted by riviera at 3:55 PM on August 24, 2003




"That's a caricature"

It is? I thought card-carrying, tax-and-spend, bleeding-heart, evil-doing pinko liberals were examples of caricature. And we know no-one who'd stoop to such usage, do we?

Sorry, I feel this was posted as flame-bait (is that what's meant by troll?), and hate to contribute/reward it, but I mean, isn't caricature a tried-and-true method used by both sides?
posted by Busithoth at 4:14 PM on August 24, 2003


Conservative appraisals here (Pat Buchanan, also via Arts & Letters) and here (Heritage Foundation panel).
posted by 111 at 4:20 PM on August 24, 2003


Media Transparency shows Mr. Berkowitz as the recipient of several thousand dollars in grants from the John M. Olin Foundation, which also bankrolls such worthies as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Why am I not surprised?
posted by eyebeam at 4:41 PM on August 24, 2003


111: The Pat Buchanan article was much better than the one you used in your post. While I do not want to see Bush serve a second term, I realize it is going to be very difficult to take him down. Buchanan rightly points out the way 3rd parties have spoiled elections in the past. Usually, it seems the 3rd party is far right, siphoning off right-wing votes, but now the 3rd party is the green party, who take the left wing votes. I worry that the GOP is in better control of it's fringes while the DNC in badly organized and full of intercene conflict. Bush doesn't have to win any primaries, he can just start gunning for election now, but truly progressive candidates, like Howard Dean, must first do battle with their own party.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:42 PM on August 24, 2003


The opening paragraph is an excellent summary of the charges against Bush. The remainder of the article purports to refute them, but weakly and questionably:

Bush is not cutting taxes to pay off the rich. Rightly or wrongly, he believes that cutting taxes almost always leads to a growth in production ...

He's countering opinion with opinion here, not facts. He says "Bush believes". This could, and probably should, read "Bush appears to believe" or even "claims to believe", because that's all the author knows. Thin, thin stuff. And even then, he doesn't attempt to assert that this belief is correct, despite the horrific damage it will cause if it's not.

It's also ironic that the author is a fellow of the Hoover Institution -- named in honor of the last president, prior to this one, to preside over an economy with a net loss of jobs.

All told he's on a lot more solid ground when he makes the case against Bush than for him. Perhaps he should take a clue from that.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:44 PM on August 24, 2003


You know, op-eds are still crappy FPPs. Take it to a political forum.
posted by blissbat at 4:50 PM on August 24, 2003


Howard Dean for America!!!
/trolling
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:51 PM on August 24, 2003


What I can't understand is the constant whine from the liberal democratic left about Bush. They should be turning gleeful cartwheels and kissing each other about his big fat liberal domestic policies like the medicare "put-anything-on-my-desk-and-I'll-sign-it" multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded giveway, steel tariffs, campaign finance reform, et cetera. (There's one more that escapes me at the moment)

Or are they just jealous because he's stealing their thunder?

Defense? There is no better man for the job.
posted by hama7 at 4:56 PM on August 24, 2003


From the 'GWB Resume' that's been doing the rounds lately :
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I set the the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.

After taking-off the entire month of August 2001, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I attacked and overtook two countries, promised to rebuild them and have not yet done so.

I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.

I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends and the CIA, where, coincidentally, my daddy used to lead.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S.
president.

In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month, leaving us in higher than ever unemployment.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.

I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

I allowed non-compete oil contracts to go to my VP's company (where he is still employed, but on "deferred compensation") and won't answer to anyone about it.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of humankind.

I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I created the largest governmental department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight, than any presidential administration in U.S.
history.

I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history. My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my 2000 election decision.

I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

I am the first to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am the first president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

I changed U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.

I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.

I failed to capture Saddam Hussein.

My family is very close with the Saudi Royal family, and have been for years, so I kept the pages out of the report on 9-11 that may put the Saudi's in a bad light.

I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. I have no leads and no credible suspects.

Following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any PUBLIC investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.

In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.

I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward -- all in less than two years.

Records and References:

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.

I was AWOL from the National Guard.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

~ Please consider my experience when voting in 2004. ~

The facts (and though these are certainly described using language carefully chosen to deride, they are for the most part, I believe, no less facts) speak quite clearly, don't they? Doesn't look much like a 'crude caricature', to me at least.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:24 PM on August 24, 2003


Defense? There is no better man for the job.

if by "defense" you mean "giving away billions to his military/energy cronies" you're perfectly right, nobody does it better.

on the other hand "since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 135 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, according to the latest Department of Defense figures."
posted by matteo at 5:32 PM on August 24, 2003


I detest Bush.

This is our leader...what sham am I living through...?

THIS...this man...is our leader?

We are in trouble until we get him out and right our ship.

To heaven with all right-wing extremists I think would be the graceful way to put it.

This is the Stepford Presidency. Help ourselves!
posted by RubberHen at 6:31 PM on August 24, 2003


Defense? There is no better man for the job.

So they finally found [osama|saddam|wmds], have they? So sad, the usual suspects aren't even trying anymore.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:41 PM on August 24, 2003


all fine and dandy - except BUSH IS A LIAR
posted by specialk420 at 7:00 PM on August 24, 2003


MetaTalk.
posted by trharlan at 7:15 PM on August 24, 2003


BUSH IN 04'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 PM on August 24, 2003


The view expressed in the article is probably true from a far right wingers perspective, just as it was true that many far left wingers felt that Clinton was a watered down Republican. The left wing pundits should be taking advantage of this divide to undermine his chance for reelection. You're obviously not going to make these people vote for your favourite liberal candidate, but you could make people vote in favour of some farther right candidate. That right wing candidate doesn't have a chance competing against Bush but could take enough votes away to either give a shot at a liberal winning or at least upset the split between seats in the house and senate.
posted by substrate at 7:36 PM on August 24, 2003


Republicans in California have initiated a recall against the governor, giving three reasons for their effort:

1. The state's budget has gone from a sizeable surplus to a substantial deficit in a few short years.

2. Gov. Davis did not tell the truth to voters about the state's budget and economic situation.

3. The state's economy remains in dismal shape, and the chief executive of the state is ultimately responsible for it's welfare.

If we apply these standards to a governor, then they must also be applicable to a president. The next recall effort is long overdue: a Bush recall campaign.

posted by madamjujujive at 8:00 PM on August 24, 2003


stravosthewonderchicken's list is almost a good start at a campaign to get right-wingers to vote against Bush. It's aimed at the left though, who most likely wouldn't vote for him anyway. Trim it down to the reflect the ways in which he's failed to abide by the core values of the conservatives. Focus on ways he's made bigger government, tread on the constitution or tried to cut the purse strings to servicemen.

I've cut it down a bit, but even this is too much. I'd cut it down to a few related points per poster, pick a particularily unpresidential picture of him and post it.
  1. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
  2. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
  3. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
  4. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
  5. In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month, leaving us in higher than ever unemployment.
  6. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
  7. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.
  8. I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.
  9. I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for a ctive duty troops and their families -- in war time.
  10. I created the largest governmental department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
  11. I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.
posted by substrate at 8:01 PM on August 24, 2003


The article mentions that bush is reliant on market initiatives to drive the economy through the tax cuts, etc. However when the market has all the initiative of a 20 year old trust fund dope head, what the hell?

This article is nothing more than a blathering, no back bone attempt to legitimize the bush fiasco.

Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.
posted by damnitkage at 8:02 PM on August 24, 2003


It's worth noting that, out here in the "real world," Bush is losing ground. According to polls conducted by Newsweek magazine and reported in this article:
"President George W. Bush’s approval ratings continue to decline. His current approval rating of 53 percent is down 18 percent from April. And for the first time since the question was initially asked last fall, more registered voters say they would not like to see him re-elected to another term as president (49 percent) than re-elected. Forty-four percent would favor giving Bush a second term; in April, 52 percent backed Bush for a second term and 38 percent did not.
All the Democrats need to do is find a decent, viable candidate (there's still no Southerner in the race that's even risen out of single digits, and history says the chance of the Dems winning without a Southerner are pretty much nonexistent) and let Bush continue to not deliver. No Osama bin Laden, no Sadaam Hussein, no WsMD - and hundreds (thousands?) of Americans dead, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars wasted... So much for the Cowboy President. All a Democrat will have to do is to promise to keep his weenie in his pants the next time somebody insults the flag and remind everybody about all the money and all those dead American kids.
posted by JollyWanker at 8:49 PM on August 24, 2003


"When it comes to economics, the furious criticism that the Bush tax cuts provoke often disguises the ideas or sensibility that inform them. Bush is not cutting taxes to pay off the rich. Rightly or wrongly, he believes that cutting taxes almost always leads to a growth in production and consequently to an increase in jobs, which benefits everyone. "

This is pure supply-side rhetoric, and is hardly supported by the past. In general, there is a short term increase in production, but since people are still craving liquidity during times of economic uncertainty, it's more likely that prices will simply increase, and production will return to it's original level.

What's happening right now is that retail sales are up 5%, but actual production is down almost 2%, which suggests that supply will be constrained and prices will increase. (They're already up by 2 or so percent)

If Bush had pursued a more aggressive monetary policy, he might have been able to get the economy going, but his brand of fiscal policy isn't likely to help much. The Fed is taking a "wait-and-see" approach to the tax cuts, so they're not helping much.

The funny thing (economically, funny, not ha-ha funny) is that the only thing Bush has done to increase GDP is to increase military spending; but if you remove increase in GDP due to the military, actual growth of American industry is painfully low.
posted by aubin at 9:03 PM on August 24, 2003


Bush lies! -- Of that, I have no doubt.

Liberals exaggerate or misrepresent the Bush lies! -- Of that, I also have no doubt.

Politicians lie! -- No shit.
posted by mischief at 9:45 PM on August 24, 2003


What's happening right now is that retail sales are up 5%, but actual production is down almost 2%, which suggests that supply will be constrained and prices will increase. (They're already up by 2 or so percent)

Considering that there was a recent scare that the US might be hit by a wave of deflation, this may not necessarily be a bad thing.

You are right about recent GDP growth figures being driven almost entirely by additional defense spending, though.
posted by deanc at 10:01 PM on August 24, 2003


Not sure if anybody posted it up above. But here is the partial debunking of the Berkowitz article in question at Tapped.

To sum up:

This really may be one of the most intellectually shallow articles Tapped has ever read.
posted by crasspastor at 10:23 PM on August 24, 2003


deanc: You're correct that deflation is worse, but the problem here is not the price levels themselves, but how an increase in price levels masks the fact that production hasn't changed much.

People will look at the dollars spent, and, without factoring in inflation, conclude that the tax cut has caused GDP growth, when in actuality, very little has changed in terms of actual production.

It's effective politically, but not very effective economically is what I was getting at.
posted by aubin at 10:27 PM on August 24, 2003


did anyone else note that the date on the op-ed puts it in the stale category? like a rotten milk? i'm just now remembering seeing this a week + ago.

"bring 'em on" is going down in '04.
posted by specialk420 at 11:08 PM on August 24, 2003


Metafilter: Fuck 'em, Fuck 'em all.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:36 PM on August 24, 2003


So they finally found [osama|saddam|wmds], have they?

According to this article, the US did a deal with Pakistan not to capture Bin Laden for fear of destabilising Pakistan.
posted by kerplunk at 3:07 AM on August 25, 2003


Y'know, one time in art class, I tried drawing this model ina realistic way. It looked crap, nothing like her. So I decided to draw a caricature of her instead, and was amazed that everyone came up afterwards, and said how realistic it was.

I kept insiisting it was a cartoon, they all said it was very life-like (including the model.)
posted by Blue Stone at 3:51 AM on August 25, 2003


history says the chance of the Dems winning without a Southerner are pretty much nonexistent

History can make fools of us all. You could have Gore's weak results in the South and still win (leaving aside the debate over Florida) with New Hampshire.
posted by riviera at 4:57 AM on August 25, 2003


I suppose so, riviera, but then, Gore didn't win, did he? And not because he lost Florida - he didn't win because his campaign was so poor, the situation in Florida actually mattered at all... His should have been just about the easiest win in recent memory, and he lost to an intellectual midget with a past that should have kept him from running altogether (drug abuse, cheating on military obligations, sleazy business dealings... the list goes on...).

Given how dicey it's going to be to beat Bush, the Democrats would be fools to attempt a new play - they should stick to the tried-and-true patterns that have won them the Big House in the past and go for a charismatic Southerner with a very strong domestic policy bent.
posted by JollyWanker at 5:28 AM on August 25, 2003


Actually, considering Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes, I'd say he lost the election precisely because he lost Florida.
posted by bshort at 6:11 AM on August 25, 2003


Actually, Gore "lost" the election because of piss poor planning. Had he campaigned in Ohio, Florida would not have mattered.
posted by ElvisJesus at 6:48 AM on August 25, 2003


ElvisJesus: Good point. It still breaks my heart that Gore pissed away a sure thing by neither capitalizing on his own strengths nor highlighting the weaknesses of his opponent.
posted by bshort at 7:25 AM on August 25, 2003


Bush seems to have more or less made his peace with a New Deal-style welfare state. (from Berkowitz' article)

Statements like this blow my mind. "New deal-style?!" Maybe "Military-industrial-style" welfare state.

And ya know, the vitriol directed at Bush from the left is nothing compared the amazing, constant, massive outpouring of aggressive hatred directed at Clinton for 8 years. (Not that I'm a huge Clinton fan, but...)
posted by micropublishery at 8:42 AM on August 25, 2003


111: You're insane. But keep it up. It's nice to have political contrast here at the MeFi.
posted by xmutex at 8:56 AM on August 25, 2003


elwoodwiles, actually the Buchanan article is more historically thorough but it goes beyond what I had in mind, that is, a conservative evaluation that took into account the liberal perspective as well as hinting at Bush's moderate type of conservatism.

blissbat, the article is not an op-ed piece. The Berkowitz text was featured in the weekend "Ideas" section of the the Boston Globe.
posted by 111 at 11:46 AM on August 25, 2003


111: An article need not be on a clearly marked "opinion/editorials" page to be an opinion piece. From a quick glance at the Boston Globe's online archives, I'd say that the articles are a good mixture of presenting the ideas of others and articles that present the writer's opinion. Most are not of the form "I think that this is true because..." but rather the more passive argument form, where statements are made to justify a point.

If you report events and quote source, it's journalism. If you have to dig for facts and interviews, it's investigative journalism. When you draw inferences based on those facts to create a conclusion that none of your sources directly stated, it's probably an editorial.
posted by mikeh at 12:20 PM on August 25, 2003


111: An article need not be on a clearly marked "opinion/editorials" page to be an opinion piece.

mikeh, op-ed means simply features printed "opposite the editorial page". They're opinionated because non-narrative texts usually are; most journalism/investigative journalism categories you mention are seldom exempt from drawing conclusions and offering opinions of their own.

While strict op-ed pieces are Verboten, not a day passes here without someone posting an FPP with politically charged connotations-- but those are liberal in nature, so perhaps you're uncomfortable with the fact that Berkowitz is actually defending Bush's policies.
posted by 111 at 1:39 PM on August 25, 2003


« Older Antique Scientific Instruments   |   Great Mammon's Organisms Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post