مشرف
الحاله :
تاريخ التسجيل: Sep 2004
رقم العضوية: 7659
المكان: مكة - زمزم ولد زمزم
الهواية: كرة القدم , الموسيقى والأغاني العربية منها والغربية , الأفلام الأمريكية , الانترنت , ألعاب الفيديو
السيرة الذاتيه: أنا الملك
العمل: إيش يسوي الملك؟ يقعد يتسلطن طول اليوم
مشاركات: 56,722
هذا مقال قرأته قبل فترة
Kendrick Macdowell, did law and politics in D.C. for 20 years
1.4k Views
There is a (mostly benign) liberal bias at the Post because journalists skew liberal generally. But there is also a very powerful institutional incentive to appear even-handed with respect to competing ideologies in the capital. You're more likely to get unbiased reporting in Washington, D.C. than you are in most American cities and towns, where the dominant media can well afford to favor one party or ideology without significant penalty.
Moreover, the public microscope (and media navel-gazing) is very intense in D.C. That crucible doesn't eliminate bias, but it routinely serves it up on the next day's front page.
For readers who require Wall Street Journal-style indubitable logic, consider: the Washington Post has itself reportedthat it is an unreliable source, which means that its conclusion is unreliable, which means the Washington Post is probably a reliable source.
So the Washington Post is saying you can't believe McCain's ad because it is based on reporting in ... the Washington Post. The Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, according to the Washington Post. But if the Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, how can we believe the Washington Post when it says it's not a reliable source of information?
سأترجمه لاحقا إن شاء الله
وذو الجهلِ لا ينفكُّ مضطربا *****
***** لأقلِّ شيءٍ يفقدُ الصَّبرا
كل المصائبِ عنده كبُرَتْ *****
*****إلا مصيبة جهلهِ الكُبْرَى