tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post4491825363905526240..comments2024-03-27T21:22:03.495-04:00Comments on Dan Shaughnessy Watch: And Now For More Boston Globe Bashing - XVIIIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-10929589160599170412013-02-25T18:32:46.843-05:002013-02-25T18:32:46.843-05:00You can make a case for the Globe being center lef...You can make a case for the Globe being center left throughout the years, but the arguement still doesn't wash for it being socialist. They editorial page may be socialist leaning relative to your and Monkeyman's opinion, but that hardly makes it a hardline mouthpiece. Sadly, its not worth investing time into navigating Boston.com's cringe inducung search engine to find specific editorials (or worse, actually having to read them) to support my arguement. But, I would respectfully suggest you consider its stance more akin to social capitalism. Lumping editorial pages into a strictly antagonistic category as purely socialst unfairly typecasts its authors and their opinions. And, I find it impossible to believe over my 10 years of reading that they've been irrationally opposed to nearly every business entity, as so claimed by your original criticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-44508566074240145692013-02-24T20:04:52.391-05:002013-02-24T20:04:52.391-05:00Anonymous - by your argument, then the Globe shoul...Anonymous - by your argument, then the Globe should be promoting agendas that oppose denying anyone who can create wealth the ability to do so. This is real difference. What the Globe has long promoted is just Dominant Media Culture boilerplate and yourself cannot name one issue on which they were right.Monkeesfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14522953722006761283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-59399632357372545082013-02-24T19:03:42.584-05:002013-02-24T19:03:42.584-05:00Is the Globe a liberal newspaper? In my opinion, ...Is the Globe a liberal newspaper? In my opinion, this is not even in question. I had the Globe pegged as liberal back in early high school. I also had the benefit of reading the Manchester Union Leader during my upbringing and I've found William Loeb, their now deceased publisher, to be far more logical and reasoned in his opinions than the Globe's editorial staff.<br /><br />Now let's consider Monkeesfan god-awful taste in music, I mean, opinion that the Globe is socialist disinformation. I don't consider it <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t" rel="nofollow">much of a stretch</a>. If you consider and accept those definitions, this is why socialism, and its predecessor formation, communism, always fail - some people are simply more productive than others, and when human nature kicks in and the producers get pissed off at the slackers and non-producers, the system falls apart. I don't believe this statement to be controversial, or refutable. In fact, to paraphrase the dead white males who wrote this wicked pisser document back in 1776, I hold this statement to be self-evident. Maybe I need to re-read Das Kapital a fourth time, but I don't believe Marx addressed that differential of personal production / ownership of the results thingy angle at all in his treatise.<br /><br />Another point, which for some reason I didn't consider until now - I can make the point that unions are a macro level form of socialism, in which the collective output and renumeration of the members of the union are, dare I say it, socialized, and the individual members who are responsible for a greater level of productivity are not rewarded for it. <br /><br />Let me provide my own personal example. I worked for the Mass. Department of Revenue from 1988 to 1992. In my first year I assessed / collected well over $1 million for 'the state'. At the end of the year we all got the same percentage raises. The next year revenues from our group of first year hires dropped massively. Once again, to paraphrase the dead white males, cause and effect should be self-evident.<br /><br />That said, in my opinion the Boston Globe at best promotes a left-wing / liberal agenda. Given that, I don't believe it's a stretch to say that the Globe is essentially socialist in nature and when it comes to their preferred economic structure of society, they've been wrong on every one of those issues. Whether this mindset contributes to their current demise is another discussion.Roger Bournivalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16930002406434500054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-39127003141978002882013-02-23T11:54:00.573-05:002013-02-23T11:54:00.573-05:00It's only socialist if you apply your own defi...It's only socialist if you apply your own definition to the word 'socialism'. Or, if you're paranoid that everything with a whiff of difference to you're own opinion merits that label. There are actual socialst in the world. You may want to look into them before stamping your feet and resorting to childish labeling and name calling. And, the Globe was wong on every issue for decades? That's a pretty blanket statement. Even this blog gives credit to Shaughnessy when credit is due.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-67478127643671486872013-02-23T10:38:50.975-05:002013-02-23T10:38:50.975-05:00Anonymous - the Globe has been wrong on every issu...Anonymous - the Globe has been wrong on every issue for decades. Yes, the Globe is socialist disinformation (they're at it again today with an attack on Maine over the Tea Party). The only weay the Globe can ever become relevant again is the change its way - become a paper that reports the real world, not the mythology of socialism.Monkeesfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14522953722006761283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-53421629187783752922013-02-23T08:47:03.177-05:002013-02-23T08:47:03.177-05:00Normally I find criticisms of the Globe on this bl...Normally I find criticisms of the Globe on this blog to be reasonable, especially complaints against its namesake. Anyone who reads its editorials probably has nightmares about Jeff Jacoby's lazy scribblings of Jacoby. But this round of Globe bashing veers into the ditch with its own lazy ranting against accussations of some anti-corporate, anti-free enterprise agenda. The Globe as socialist propaganda? Not really. A paper doomed by trends in how New England consumes news and out of touch columnists and dumbed down editorials? More likely. If anything, I suspect the Globe would bend over backwards to generate advertizing revenue from just about any company, ethics be damned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com