...being condescended to by the Times of London about a Southern California court judgment that I don't like one little bit myself. What are we now to the rest of the world -- South Africa?
Posted by Martha Bridegam at January 24, 2005 10:22 AMLeaving aside the case itself, I am a bit confused as to why you think The Times is being condescending. What, specifically, is condescending about the article?
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 24, 2005 10:28 AMIt's the tone of, "These Americans... typical uncivilized travesty... if only we hadn't let them throw that tea in the harbor..."
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 24, 2005 10:47 AMSorry, I genuinely don't know what you're on about. Perhaps others can comment.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 24, 2005 11:14 AMThe whole thing is certainly embarrassing to the US, but I don't detect anything but an ordinary neutral tone in the article itself.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at January 25, 2005 09:00 AMIt's mainly the headline: "The policemen disciplined for this beating have just been awarded $2.4 m."
If the Times would have used that headline for a similar UK event (if such can be imagined), then I guess I'll withdraw the objection.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 25, 2005 09:30 AM