Your online headline is jarring. I am interested to see if the print version utilizes the word "warns." I wonder how much thought was given as to whether a more neutral term might have sufficed.
There is tension enough in this 3 way showdown with Iran and the proper course of action to take without using inflammatory language regarding the nature of the relationship between the US and Israel. The only "warnings" should be directed at our enemy and not our ally.
On the eve of critical meetings, the New York Times should have exercised greater care in its use of a potentially inflammatory and condescending term. How would the paper respond to being "warned" not to print a particular story?
I would suggest that the newspaper should have used "caution" both literally and figuratively in its choice of terminology.
PS THIS WAS WRITTEN AND SUBMITTED (IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION) TO THE PUBLIC EDITOR OF THE NY TIMES AT ABOUT 2 AM- A LATER ONLINE HEADLINE OF THE TIMES ARTICLE WAS CHANGED TO READ "OBAMA SAYS MILITARY OPTION OF IRAN NOT A 'BLUFF' ".
PS THIS WAS WRITTEN AND SUBMITTED (IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION) TO THE PUBLIC EDITOR OF THE NY TIMES AT ABOUT 2 AM- A LATER ONLINE HEADLINE OF THE TIMES ARTICLE WAS CHANGED TO READ "OBAMA SAYS MILITARY OPTION OF IRAN NOT A 'BLUFF' ".
No comments:
Post a Comment