Picked up by Tiny Revolution before I could articulate my feelings. Following the release of the Israel Lobby paper out of Harvard (with it being pulled from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvards website), articles were written with not so subtle tones to them in the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, etc.
The best Example of all Examples is the Washington Post article, called ‘Of Israel, Harvard, and David Duke’. This was put in the Sunday outlook section of the Post, which is supposed to be a more serious, discussion oriented weekly portion of the paper. So their interpretation of the allegations of influence held by the Israel Lobby? Why, a short article with 6 quotes, 2 positive and 4 negative. One of the positive: David Duke. I’m still waiting for the positive quotes from Pat Buchanan and OJ Simpson, so this topic can be succesfully buried with guilt by assocation.
