Posted by aogSaturday, 21 November 2009 at 10:20 TrackBack Ping URL

Some one help me out with what passes for journalism these days, as exemplified in this story (via Brothers Judd) —

Europe’s hopes of translating its economic power into global political clout have suffered a severe setback as a result of the timid choices on new leadership made this week, analysts, officials, and diplomats conceded on Friday

If “Europe” actually has those hopes, why would they make those timid choices? Doesn’t the latter demonstrate the weakness or non-existence of the former? Wouldn’t a normal person look at a situation where A has to do X to get Y, and A doesn’t do X, that A doesn’t really want Y? That perhaps if “Europe” selected two decent mediocrities to “lead”, that’s what “Europe” wanted?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Harry Eagar Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 12:01

While I agree that is crap, thumb-sucking journalism (but nothing specially modern or recent about it), it might also be factually correct. I wouldn’t have to search through too many comments at Thought Mesh to discover evidence that people who allegedly wanted a strong fiscal policy by the American government in 2004 also backed the wimpy G. Bush when it came down to voting for somebody.

Call it the triunmph of experience over hope.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 12:50

If you want X, and your choices are “not much X” and “no X”, it hardly seems bizarre to pick “not much X”. In the case in the original post, there in fact choices with more X. The situations are not at all analogous.

Post a comment