I can see your reading of it, and from R. Elgin’s further comments I’d say I misinterpreted the mood of the piece to be a little more unbalanced against “the left” than intended. Thanks for the clarification/correction!

Ah, for better tone of voice in text.

And the topic didn’t drift. The comments did as they most usually do. Your entry was nice. I just didn’t feel like commenting on it. Especially since snow’s #4 was so dead-on on with my feelings regarding media bias.

Journalists, Editors, and Media CEOs vote. Therefore, it is likely they have opinions (which may or not be for sale). Human beings have a dirty habit of allowing their politics to mix with their jobs, especially when the party they love or the party they hate is in power. What else is to say?

This topic is also drifting way off course . . .

…everywhere that Western Democratic countries have interfered with the natural evolution of governments have resulted in mostly dictatorial or anarchic travesties that call themselves “civilized democracies.”

South Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, others come to mind as examples…

…though exceptions exist too but all I wonder if India and Japan are really good examples of this and how the future will turn out.

Of course not. Just like, say, Wall Street Journal was not supportive of Clinton and wouldn’t be of Obama.

And, in addition to apologizing for not being critical enough of the Iraq war evidence, they have full time conservative columnsits and opinion pieces. (Good luck finding that in the Hankyurae.)

But this nonsense “the NYT and WaPo spent most of their time crusading against Republican presidents” is just dumb. It’s just as dumb when people say the opposite about conservative papers.

How much of the coverage of the NYT or WaPo is positive towards Bush and how much is negative. I’d venture to say that some is neutral, but a good deal is/was negative with very little positive. Overall, definitely not supportive of Bush or Republicans.

I don’t seem to remember them spending most of their time doing that. I do remember the Times apologizing for not being critical enough about our Republican president’s evidence in the lead up to the war.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/ww.....25832.html

——–
“Analysts say that a power struggle inside the governing Grand National Party (GNP) and the diminished role of the largest opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) might be two core factors explaining the disappearance of parliamentary politics in a key agenda facing the nation. ”
——-

Factional infightings we know about.. but here I thought the government is not functioning because the UDP and DLP are boycotting the National Assembly because they didn’t get what they want.

The next thing this newspaper will print is how Lee’s government policies have failed to bring growth to the country.

While the lefties are busy sabotaging the government so that it can’t do anything, world raw material crisis is clobbering Korea’s economy.

With trading terms worsening everyday, in no time, S.Korea may face another 1997 financial crisis, while the assholes rule the streets.

. . . The reason why non-traditional “psudo-news sites,” as you put them, have attained the influence they have is because the mainstream press has at best ignored and at worst misrepresenting the views and issues they express.

I agree with you Robert. Mainstream media in Korea has sabotaged its own credibility by allowing such strong bias towards big money and certain political cliques. The big three need a shake up in hopes that they will develop a better sense of their role to inform society with as little bias as possible.

Despite the big three’s flaws, to blatantly substitute rumor, innuendo and gossip for legitimate facts and intelligent discussion of events is far worse, IMHO, because inciting and encouraging “mob justice” mentality ultimately leads to violence.

Remember the Maine?