In his opinion piece on October 2nd, Mr. Antovich makes a very poor argument through his use of the same tactics that he accuses the “left-leaning” of using. I know what “opinion” means, but I assume the idea is also to convince readers of the value of one’s opinion. Mr. Antovich seems to have felt the best way to do this was throw a bunch of names and quips at the reader in quick succession. This is why I like the news sources criticized by Mr. Antovich. They cannot claim neutrality, but they do back up their claims with videos and transcripts of those whom they scrutinize- aka “evidence”. The mission statement for Media Matters quoted in the paper appears in the Google search – I wonder if Mr. Antovich actually visited the site itself? The problem with most news outlets today is the insufficient amount of coverage given to important issues and the different sides of those issues. Like when Mr. Antovich criticizes MoveOn.org for their “Betray-us” ad. Appropriate or not, I find it less appropriate for someone to be criticizing any group for exercising their right to free speech, especially considering the article on the page opposite their own (“F- Censorship”, wasn’t it?). Worse, this non-issue distracts from the real issues we face, like Iraq. Lastly, I agree that George Soros is a shady character, but Rupert Murdoch shouldn’t get a free pass. According to Mr. Antovich however, it’s okay by him for Murdoch to lie to the public.
Adam Klafter
Student