HAVE PROTESTORS HIJACKED THE WASHINGTON
HAVE PROTESTORS HIJACKED THE WASHINGTON POST?: Generally, the Post is perceived as more balanced than the New York Times, but if you click on their World page right now, you might believe that antiwar activists have seized control of the paper. (UPDATE: Not surprisingly, the page has been updated. What follows was true at the ...
HAVE PROTESTORS HIJACKED THE WASHINGTON POST?: Generally, the Post is perceived as more balanced than the New York Times, but if you click on their World page right now, you might believe that antiwar activists have seized control of the paper. (UPDATE: Not surprisingly, the page has been updated. What follows was true at the time I first posted this, however). Why do I say that? This is the first big story headline you see: "Thousands Worldwide Protest Start Of Iraq War." Which is perfectly fine, certainly important and newsworthy, yada, yada, yada. I'm not objecting to the substance of the coverage. It's just that the second big story headline is: "Tens of Thousands Around the World Protest Against the War." The first story was in today's print edition, while the second is an AP report from this afternoon (there's also this story about protests in Arab countries). Now, isn't it a bit much to give the biggest play to both of these stories? Don't the headlines suggest a fair amount of redundancy? And isn't there a glaring contradiction in the headlines? It reminds me of this Doonesbury strip from the days of yore.
HAVE PROTESTORS HIJACKED THE WASHINGTON POST?: Generally, the Post is perceived as more balanced than the New York Times, but if you click on their World page right now, you might believe that antiwar activists have seized control of the paper. (UPDATE: Not surprisingly, the page has been updated. What follows was true at the time I first posted this, however). Why do I say that? This is the first big story headline you see: “Thousands Worldwide Protest Start Of Iraq War.” Which is perfectly fine, certainly important and newsworthy, yada, yada, yada. I’m not objecting to the substance of the coverage. It’s just that the second big story headline is: “Tens of Thousands Around the World Protest Against the War.” The first story was in today’s print edition, while the second is an AP report from this afternoon (there’s also this story about protests in Arab countries). Now, isn’t it a bit much to give the biggest play to both of these stories? Don’t the headlines suggest a fair amount of redundancy? And isn’t there a glaring contradiction in the headlines? It reminds me of this Doonesbury strip from the days of yore.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
