The New York Times

On March 17, 2006, The New York Times published an article called "Democracy Push by Bush Attracts Doubters in Party." Here are its first two sentences:

"Even as it presents an updated national security strategy, the Bush administration is facing fresh doubts from some Republicans who say its emphasis on promoting democracy around the world has come at the expense of protecting other American interests.

The second thoughts signify a striking change in mood over one of President Bush's cherished tenets, pitting Republicans who call themselves realists against the neoconservatives who saw the invasion of Iraq as a catalyst for change and who remain the most vigorous advocates of a muscular American campaign to foster democratic movements."

PROBLEM: If you're going to use a term like "other American interests" you should define it. Otherwise, cynical people might think you're really talking about the economic interests of gigantic multi-national corporations, rather than the interests of ordinary citizens in, say, Ohio. The Paper of Record shouldn't wink.

PROBLEM: "[P]romoting democracy around the world" is "one of President Bush's cherished tenets." There is no evidence for this statement. This statement is propaganda and, in the truest sense, has no meaning and conveys no information.

PROBLEM: By "muscular American campaign," do you mean the use of force and military power? If so, then just call it that and stop lying. Killing civilians never becomes moral based on how you frame the issue.

PROBLEM: "But critics worry that antidemocratic extremists will prevail wherever tradition and existing civil institutions are too weak to protect the rights of minorities or to nurture moderates." In other words, if we don't like the people who win the election then something must be wrong with their democratic process. It couldn't possibly be that the process accurately reflects what the people in that country actually think. Welcome to some planet other than Earth.

PROBLEM: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling this week in South America, Asia and Australia in part to promote democracy, acknowledges the growing dissent but says the administration will stick to its goals.

'There is a debate, and I think it's a debate that's healthy,' she said [Rhetoric that has no meaning]. 'This is obviously a really big change in American foreign policy, to put the promotion of democracy at the center of it [Then what did we support before we supported democracy? You mean American presidents officially supported something besides democracy?]. And people take very seriously what this president is doing and intends to do.' [No, they don't. People realize he is a joke who can barely speak when his words aren't prepared for him in advance. As a best case scenario, people realize he is a puppet being manipulated by evil people. You're one of them.]

PROBLEM: "It names as strongholds of tyranny North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Myanmar and Zimbabwe -- [but excludes Saudi Arabia?]." The idea that Cuba is a tyranny -- and the best paper in the world reports this with no context or analysis -- is idiotic and laughable or sad. This statement, right there, is proof that The New York Times is GARBAGE. If the newspaper were sold blank it would be of more use as an information source: you could use it as a diary, a canvas, or to make a grocery list.