More about the article from Joe:
Journalists—real ones—often talk about ledes. The live end and the dead end; the story’s warp and woof. Two crucial things are missing from this sensationalist story. Not coincidentally, both mitigate its dramatic power. The nuclear weapons in question are tactical nuclear bombs. Those are not strategic nuclear bombs, which are the epic machines a few nations hold in reserve to balance geopolitical power. But the writer wants to use the kind of shock they provide, so the headline simply says ‘nuclear’ rather than ‘tactical nuclear’. The difference? A tactical nuclear bomb isn’t special because it is nuclear—it is special because it packs the power of five or so conventional bombs into a single package. A strategic nuclear bomb ends cities and nations. Every nuclear state concentrates its weapons development on tactical bombs, even as the word nuclear conjures in our heads images only of strategic bombs.
Strategic bombs like those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mr. Mahnaimi, who has perfected his scare craft since his days of revealing Israel’s anti-Arab genetic mutation juice, sees fit to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki right in the third paragraph, saying “The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Read the whole post. And there's more at Israel Matzav.
If I'd realized that the Times was publishing an article by the author of the "genetic bomb" libel, I wouldn't have bothered reading the story in the first place.
Aw, it was a very good post. In concept I have to put in place writing similar to this additionally – taking time and actual effort to create a good article… but so what can I say… I procrastinate alot by no indicates often get something completed.
pay per click programs are really great, i could earn some decent cash from it..