The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, October 1, 2010

"Nonpartisan Rally"

In today's "Political Notebook" we have an item on a "nonpartisan rally" to be held at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, 2 October.

From the item in The Boston Globe we have this:
Organizers say more than 400 organizations — ranging from labor unions to faith, environmental and gay rights groups — are coming together to advocate for job creation, quality education, and justice.
And then this:
Although organizers describe the rally as nonpartisan, they also hope to raise awareness of their concerns before political contests that are expected to sweep out many Democrats.
So what makes a rally "nonpartisan"?  Speaking of the Glenn Beck rally last month the newspaper of record for the hub of the universe says:
Though also billed as nonpolitical, the rally was widely viewed as a protest against the policies of President Obama and Democrats.
So, it would seem that if the rally is by "progressives" it is "nonpartisan".  And they are going to charge us in good hard Yankee dollars for this kind of thing starting next year?

UPDATE:  As Kad Barma correctly notes in his comment (Comment 1), the on-line headline no longer has the headline "Nonpartisan rally set for Lincoln Memorial" but rather now reads "Activists to hold rally for progressive policies", although the tagline that come up does come up on my Safari Browser still says, on the tab, "Nonpartisan rally set for Lincoln...". I say kudos to The Globe on-line editors to picking up their initial mistake and trying to correct it.

Regards  —  Cliff


Craig H said...

I'm not sure I follow your point?

The URL includes the "nonpartisan" canard (as may have a link to it that I've not seen), but the headline of the actual piece clearly says "activists" and "for progressive policies" and further clearly attributes the attempt at a "nonpartisan" designation to the organizers, who are clearly (and correctly as I read things) identified as partisan by the piece.

If you insist I find one, I would only infer potential bias on the part of the link headline writer only, (I say potential, because I have not seen any such actual headline--just the URL), and not the article writer.

As for your implication that Mr. Beck is characterized inconsistently, I would also observe that the words used in the piece are consistent. To wit:

"Progressive" event: "Although organizers describe the rally as nonpartisan, they also hope to raise awareness etc."

Glen Beck event: "though also billed as nonpolitical, the rally was widely viewed etc."

The only difference between the two that I can detect is the first-person voice relating the expressed intent of the "progressive" rally organizers, as opposed to the weak and editorially flawed "widely viewed" comment about Beck.

Do you have any specific objection to the text?

I would say, as an observer opposed to the motives behind BOTH rallies, that I find each characterization to be fair and consistent with each other.

C R Krieger said...

Ah, I see your point.  They changed the headline on me on the web version.  The print version (two star edition), on page A14, said "Nonpartisan rally set for Lincoln Memorial".  My point being that the headline in the print edition (and in the on-line edition before they cleaned it up) was misleading at best.  As you note, this is not a "nonpartisan" event.

Good catch.

Regards  —  Cliff

Craig H said...

The editorial bias at the Globe is indeed oppressive.