Bill Clinton responsible for the Genoa protestor's death?
July 23, 2001 9:51 AM Subscribe
posted by thirteen at 10:03 AM on July 23, 2001
posted by mapalm at 10:03 AM on July 23, 2001
posted by revbrian at 10:04 AM on July 23, 2001
Also note such rhetorical tricks as putting "antiglobalization" in scare quotes and invoking the "Slick Willy" epithet. The WSJ is simply not rational when it comes to Clinton. They will use any possible excuse to bash him, and they are nothing if not shameless.
posted by anapestic at 10:15 AM on July 23, 2001
posted by icathing at 10:17 AM on July 23, 2001
I don't think there's any other rational way of looking at it. In a perfect world the cop may have been able to wound instead of kill him. We don't live in a perfect world. Violence begets violence. Had he not crossed the police line, and not attempted to use a fire extinguisher as a weapon he would be alive today.
posted by revbrian at 10:26 AM on July 23, 2001
posted by solistrato at 10:29 AM on July 23, 2001
They said the exact same thing at Kent State.
posted by jpoulos at 10:42 AM on July 23, 2001
And what scres me most is that people are going to say "You know what? Slick Willy is responsible!"
ugh.
posted by rich at 11:01 AM on July 23, 2001
The right and the business community are doing a terrible job of selling their version of free trade.
posted by tranquileye at 11:07 AM on July 23, 2001
Yeah, right. His actions with regards to China, Gennifer Flowers, and the truth show "Slick Willy" to be about as responsible as your average 6 year-old child.
Oh, wait, you meant responsible for the deaths... Never mind.
posted by gd779 at 11:22 AM on July 23, 2001
I wish W. would buy me an espresso machine! Darn you, dong_resin!!! *sob*
posted by gd779 at 11:27 AM on July 23, 2001
posted by holgate at 11:32 AM on July 23, 2001
posted by matteo at 11:42 AM on July 23, 2001
I'm not sure how much power comes from being on the weekend talk shows. I think that if most people know that someone's from the WSJ, they discount much of what is said. Or they believe it without question, but those who believe without question are already among the far-right faithful.
posted by anapestic at 11:44 AM on July 23, 2001
Quite a bit of power, actually: Washington tends to be an echo chamber, so the varied op-ed and pundit folk talk to... each other, and watch... each other, and read... each other. They have little contact with an outside world, and have become a clique-y group which has developed its own language and shibboleths. This wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't have the singular ability to determine what news was reported, what was considered newsworthy, and what politicians thought were the pressing issues of the day.
This anti-democratic situation is covered well by the always- awesome Eric Alterman in his book "Sound & Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy", a great read to see in detail how the media has in the past 20 years come to not only dominate how discourse occurs, but in many cases actually make policy decisions through their unexceeded bully pulpit.
posted by hincandenza at 12:29 PM on July 23, 2001
posted by revbrian at 12:50 PM on July 23, 2001
posted by nofundy at 8:55 AM on July 24, 2001
« Older Edison electrocutes an elephant at Coney Island. | What do Windows XP and lingerie have in common? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Rastafari at 9:54 AM on July 23, 2001