Skip to comments.New York Times Streak of Page One Stories on Abu Ghraib ends at 32 Days! (UPDATED: 34 of 37 days)
Posted on 06/01/2004 11:16:20 PM PDT by Plutarch
32 successive New York Times front page articles on Abu Ghraib. Since May 1 the New York Times has had a front page article every day, until today.
April 29: TREATMENT OF PRISONERS; G.I.'s Are Accused of Abusing Iraqi Captives
May 1: CAPTIVES; Bush Voices 'Disgust' at Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
May 2: DETAINEES; OFFICER SUGGESTS IRAQI JAIL ABUSE WAS ENCOURAGED
May 3: PRISONERS; COMMAND ERRORS AIDED IRAQ ABUSE, ARMY HAS FOUND
May 4: PUNISHMENT; ARMY PUNISHES 7 WITH REPRIMANDS FOR PRISON ABUSE
May 5: INMATE; Iraqi Recounts Hours of Abuse By U.S. Troops
May 6: THE PRISON GUARDS; Abuse Charges Bring Anguish In Unit's Home
May 7: THE SOLDIER; From Picture of Pride to Symbol of Abuse
May 8: COMBAT; G.I.'S KILL SCORES OF MILITIA FORCES IN 3 IRAQI CITIES
[NOTE: Abu Ghraib mentioned in first paragraph ]
May 9: THE MILITARY; In Abuse, a Portrayal of Ill-Prepared, Overwhelmed G.I.'s
May 10: PROSECUTION; FIRST TRIAL SET TO BEGIN MAY 19 IN ABUSE IN IRAQ
May 11: THE REPORT; Head of Inquiry On Iraq Abuses Now in Spotlight
May 12: Afghan Gives Own Account Of U.S. Abuse
May 13: PRISON POLICIES; General Took Guantánamo Rules To Iraq for Handling of Prisoners
May 14: THE WHISTLE-BLOWER; Accused Soldier Paints Scene of Eager Mayhem
May 15: MISTREATMENT; Earlier Jail Seen as Incubator for Abuses in Iraq
May 16: THE COURTS-MARTIAL; ACCUSED G.I.'S TRY TO SHIFT BLAME IN PRISON ABUSE
May 17: PRISONERS; SOME IRAQIS HELD OUTSIDE CONTROL OF TOP GENERAL
May 18: INTERROGATIONS; M.P.'s Received Orders to Strip Iraqi Detainees
May 19: ABU GHRAIB; Officer Says Army Tried to Curb Red Cross Visits to Prison in Iraq
May 20: THE COURT-MARTIAL; G.I. PLEADS GUILTY IN COURT-MARTIAL FOR IRAQIS' ABUSE
May 21: THE INTERROGATORS; Afghan Policies On Questioning Landed in Iraq
May 22: THE WITNESSES; Only a Few Spoke Up on Abuse As Many Soldiers Stayed Silent
May 23: SUSPECT; Translator Questioned By Army In Iraq Abuse [Page 12]
May 24: ABUSE; Afghan Deaths Linked to Unit At Iraq Prison
May 25: ARMY SHIFTS; No. 2 Army General to Move In As Top U.S. Commander in Iraq
May 26: INVESTIGATION; ABUSE OF CAPTIVES MORE WIDESPREAD, SAYS ARMY SURVEY
May 27: Three Accused Soldiers Had Records of Unruliness That Went Unpunished
May 28: U.S. Releases More Prisoners From Abu Ghraib
May 29: Cuba Base Sent Its Interrogators to Iraqi Prison
May 30:Scant Evidence Cited in Long Detention of Iraqis
May 31: Army Is Investigating Reports of Assaults and Thefts by G.I.'s Against Iraqi Civilians
[NYT Memorial Day Special]
June 1: Searing Uncertainty for Iraqis Missing Loved Ones
June 2: Afghan Prison Review
[Not on Front Page!]
I would URGE you to send a post on this bent to the ombudsman...not that it will do any good.
So what anti-Bush hit piece is on the front page instead? It's the Slimes. It's gotta be Bush's fault somehow. It's always Bush's fault. /sarcasm
I've sent dozens of letters to the editor during the past six months alone. They never published a one.
you can only throw sh1t against the wall so long.
simple mechanics,it being the sh1t won't stick any more.
reality of chesise nature,a substrate must be pourous[ie the ability to hold on to something applied.]
here at fr we are impervious to having sh1t stuck to us.
now the rest of dumbdom can'thold on to much more application.
sorry just science.
GODBLESS US ALL!
Wow. Just makes you want to take Bill Keller and chain him to a bunk with Maureen Dowd's 2X panties on his head. Or maybe they're his own panties... hard to tell with metrosexuals.
... I think.
Seriously, excellent job of research, hope the blogs pick it up.
We saw how well the LA Times's full-court press worked in that California election. Let's see how the mothership of liberal bias does in its attempt.
It's been a while since I played basketball, but ISTR that the coach would call the full-court press when our side was losing. Food for thought.
Criminal Number 18F
No Abu Ghraib story on page one today? I guess they just don't care about the story. How callous of them!
The prison "scandal" will be the stupid dems 2004 Wellstone rally.
It must have been a bitter pill for them, that they had exhausted every angle, every scrap of additional "news" on this story, and strive as they might, they could not confabulate a piece that they could put above the fold on the front page.
Well, there is always tomorrow!
An interesting observation. I believe Bill O'Reilly made a similar observation about a week ago, but I'm glad that you followed up on it.
This should be significant to those who still are under the impression that the NYT is the unbiased center of the media world.
To the rest of us, its a nice tidy statistic that can easily be presented to demonstrate that the media does have an agenda.
No validation of FR required by O'Reilly on this matter.
Perhaps O'Reilly has been following the posts here. We have known this and now it is documented.
Yes he did but many on FR have been aware of the war declared by the Orwellian Ministry months ago. Lets add the Boston Globe to the list as well.
O'Reilly simply spread it out further to his audience whom he proclaims to be looking out for.
I saw an article that said the only other story that got the same type of page 1 exposure was Watergate. The funny part: Abu Ghraib is already history (and 61% of Americans thought the coverage was overblown). Hehehehe....
Something to keep in mind is that every morning the NY Times has a meeting with their editors. To date, they have refused to publish transcriptions of those meetings even though they have demanded that corporations and government decision makers be more open to them and to the public.
Do they have something to hide in those meetings (such as demands that their underlings "get Bush")?! Absolutely.
Nonetheless, this provides us with low-hanging fruit to grab over and over again. Every letter that we write to and about them, every phone call that we make and every interview that conservatives give, we can demand that the NY Times' editors make their daily meetings public.
What is it that the NY Times Editors are deciding in smoke-filled back-rooms??
The public has a right to know.
My streak of not even reading the NY Times stands at 12 years, three months, 17 days, four hours, and 10 minutes.
So wucking phut. Let us hope something bad happens to them.
Yep, they're just outing themselves in flyover country as the America-hating fools they are.
I have *not read* the NYT continuously for my entire 63 years.
June 3: Complaint Seeks Data on Prisoners[Not front page]
The MSM community will be so outraged by the NYT's gratititous Abu Ghraib overkill, they will award the NY Times a Pulitzer Prize for it (mark my words).
Wow...mine stands at 47 years, 2 months, and 11 days.
This is unbelievable, isn't it?
So where is the coverage by the NY Slimes on the Benghazi, Libya Terrorist attack in which FOUR of our people have been killed?
New York Times coverage of the Benghazi Consulate Attack: NOTHING on the front page whatsoever! Zero, Zip, Nada !!
This on a day after the Sunday Morning News Shows were lit up with that as their number one topic for discussion.
I recall the Abu Ghraib Prison “torture and prisoner abuse” story ... remember that? The New York Times was all over that story.
Of course, that was when there was Republican in the White House. Even after the story had broken and later when there was NO NEW NEWS to report, the New York Slimes had it on their front page for THIRTY-TWO (32) DAYS back in April and May of 2004!!
Four of our people were killed in Benghazi, Libya. President Obama fiddled while Benghazi burned and our people were killed in a Terrorist attack, and the New York Times decides it is not important enough to report on their front page.
No wonder New York Slimes subscribers are dropping like flies!
"Just a few bumps in the road....."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.