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

[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?