Tuesday, October 01, 2002

Et Tu. Economist? For the last few years, I have been reading the Economist as a wide-ranging and authoritative source of world news. I have occasional issues with their political bias, but in general I find their slant far less offensive than that of US news sources because it appears to arise from independent, long-standing matters of principle rather than ideological lock-stepping. Besides, what appears somewhat conservative by European standards is still pretty middle-of-the-road on this side of the pond. Their staunch support for drug law reform, for example, is most refreshing to read coming from a staid newsmagazine. However, this week in their coverage of Gore's speech in SF (subscription required), they reported as fact an apparent inconsistency in Gore's claim of feeling "betrayed" by Bush I's decision not to go after Saddam in 1991 when it appeared he made a speech in the Senate expressing support for it at the time. The Economist called Gore's assertion "dubious" and even used "He felt betrayed, he says" as the caption under the photo of Gore. The problem is, as the Daily Howler has reported, this so-called conflict only arises if one quotes both Gore speeches out of context in a deliberate attempt at distortion, as part of the media's compulsive fixation on Gore's so-called "problem with the truth." Was this simply sloppy reporting, or has the Economist's pro-war editorial bias finally seeped into their news reporting? If so, too bad, because it's hard to beat the Economist for sheer density of information on world affairs.  10:47:15 AM    Emphasize This! []

The Boys of Autumn Today is the first day of the baseball postseason, and this year's crop of contenders looks especially fun to watch. I'm rooting to see the Twins and the Giants in the Fall Classic, but any matchup besides Braves-Yankees would be satisfactory. Hard to imagine the networks getting too excited about Angels-Cardinals, though... Meanwhile, my hometown Mariners are sitting it out this year, despite a season that would have won their division practically any other time. Last year, they accomplished the freakish feat of 116 victories in the course of the season, something only one other team in baseball history has ever managed. The Oakland A's, who won a very respectable 102 games, finished a distant second. Unfortunately, the 2001 M's were unable to do what no less than 200 teams did in the last century, which is make it to the World Series. This year, despite fielding a team that appeared marginally improved on paper, they could not sustain their winning ways past a hot April and May. By August, the younger and hungrier A's and Anaheim Angels ran them down and the hated, miserable Texas Rangers delivered the killing blow with a 4-game sweep in Arlington in mid-September. Last Wednesday, I attended the final home game of the season. Right before the first pitch, the Mariners were mathematically eliminated as the Angels finally won the clincher in Texas, so the game was basically an exhibition match. It turned out to be the Mariners' season in microcosm. They scratched out two runs early, and for most of the game appeared that they might make this meager offensive display stand up. However, just when it looked like we might all go home happy, Oakland's Miguel Tejada smacked Kazuhiro Sasaki's sinker over the right field fence to force extra innings. The M's wilted in the extra frame and ended up losing by 4 or 5 runs. Oh well, there's always next year. Go Twins! 8:18:49 AM    Emphasize This! []