A little note on the relationship of the New York Times with truth

[fpb]

There once was an exquisitely beautiful actress called Laura Antonelli. She mostly wasted her beauty on smutty comedies for the lower end of the Italian market, but this is not important. What is interesting is this: she was born in Istria in 1941, when the peninsula was Italian. Her family fled the country in 1945, along with 300,000 other Italian-speakers, when it was surrendered to the Yugoslavs. She spent all her life in Italy, and when she did not speak Italian, she spoke the Venetian dialect of Italian (which is very pretty). Her father had been involved in the Italian (which, at the time, meant Fascist) government. Her original name was Antonaz, but that was all. And finally, Istria, where she comes from, has, even today, and in spite of being a part of Croatia and having suffered violent and largely unrecorded ethnic cleansing in 1945 and following years, an Italian majority.

So how does the New York Times describe her?

As a Yugoslav actress.

Suddenly I have a clear understanding of why American conservatives loathe this supposed newspaper of record.

Comments

[bufo-viridis.livejournal.com]

Not that I'm surprised.
In one - pretty good besides - American scientifical work I found that Frederick Chopin was Russian.

Which is technically true, by the merits of the passport, but still...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

But still it does not do much to explain the Polonaise Heroique, does it?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The thing however is this: Chopin was at least a subject of the Russian Empire, however unwilling. Laura Antonaz/Antonelli was not a Yugoslav citizen for a single day; she was born in an Italian Istria, and her family left their native town, Pola/Pula, rather than have the pleasure of Yugoslav citizenship and Communist government. So the NY Times' reference entry is not only an insult to her family, it is factually false too.

[bufo-viridis.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, with all due respect to Ms. Antonelli, Chopin is better known, and usually marked as "THE Polish composer".

Of course I'm probably too toouchy, since we have but him...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Not quite (Szymanowski) but yeah, you've got a point.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Chopin? RUSSIAN????

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Sorry to say something that has nothing to do with your post (though I've always thought that the New-York Times is a dreadful newspaper), but Patagonian and I have a bit of a historical emergency here.
Could you please put on your red swimming-suit again and run along the beach, muscles gleaming in the setting sun, to save us from deadly incertainty about Richard III?
Thanks a lot,
Marie

[fpb.livejournal.com]

1) I assume you mean Richard III of England?
2) What do you need to know about him?

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

1)Yes.
2) Was he really the murderous bastard Shakespeare described, or was he the most fair and liberal king England ever had?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Go to patagonian's entry, where I have given an answer. He was certainly a murderous sod, but with excuses - and it was a murderous age. His vanquisher Henry VII was not much better - in his time, nearly every Duke in England was got rid of one way or another - and his successor Henry VIII infinitely worse, the worst king England or Britain ever had.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Fabio. You truely are the George Clooney of History :-)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Urgh, no thanks. I heartily dislike the man, and not being gay, am not even interested in his good looks.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

Johnny Depp, then?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Could we go back a bit and make it Cary Grant?

Anyway, it does not amount to much. I have a good library, designed on the principle that if I do not know something I like to have a book to refer back to. So, most times you ask me something about history, I can look it up somewhere.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

I'm fine with Cary Grant.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

Arsenic and Old Lace!Cary or Notorious!Cary?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The amazingly handsome and charismatic middle-aged man who, in CHARADE, looks perfectly right seducing a radiant young Audrey Hepburn. The dream of all men - especially those who are getting on a bit - to be, and of all straight women to meet.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

*fans self* He's attractive enough to make anyone's True North waver a bit, that is certain.

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

OMG, George Clooney is the vanquisher of Bill O'Reilly! I <33321 him like I love Sam Neill's voice and Tara Reid's drunken whoreness!

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

What does "<33321" mean?

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

Well, <3 is meant to look like a heart on its side. Overexcited AOL users below the age of 17 tend to add as many 3's to the end, probably to extend the wishing of love.

I added the other numbers to be a smartarse.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

As a person of the female persuasion, I find no attraction in George Clooney whatsoever. He is Fakey of McFake cubed. He is a pale insult to the shade of Cary Grant, charmless and gormless.

[bufo-viridis.livejournal.com]

Here's June Diamanti essay about the man. Haven't read it through, but it looks quite extensive, although the conclusions should be yours.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

They are not. I'm afraid that she takes every piece of pro-Richard propaganda at face value, including the notion that the royal title of Edward V (the eldest of the Princes in the Tower) was compromised by a supposed pre-contract conveniently discovered by a time-serving Bishop as soon as Richard, as Lord Protector, had shown a desire for the crown. Just because an enemy (Henry Tudor and his descent) slandered you, it does not mean that you are not a murderer.

[bufo-viridis.livejournal.com]

*shrug*
I gave the warning, didn't I?

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I remember her! She was in Dino Risi's Les Derniers Monstres (Sesso e volentieri) and in Sans Mobile Apparent with a bunch of terrific actors!