Posted on 07/04/2006 8:49:35 AM PDT by livesbygrace
Editorial page editors at the McClatchy Co.-owned Minneapolis Star-Tribune removed king-sized hunks of syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg’s recent column about New York Times, et al. revealing national secrets and compromising national security, during the war on terror.
That the Star-Tribune runs the Goldberg column periodically on its op-ed page is a bit of a surprise, although other more or less conservative writers appear there, too— e.g., Will, Charen and May, amid the parade of Dowds, Ivins and Krugmans. Perhaps Goldberg’s sometime finding ink is a token to break the monotony of mostly leftist palaver? His nifty column on the New York Times’ latest sins runs on July 3 under the title, “Liberals undermine the nation and the war.” You’ll find it here but registration is required.
What this newspaper did to Goldberg’s column in the editing process is a case study in how editorial people omit cogent information that might clash with their own political views. Another reason, if one were to speculate on why the clever editing, is that liberal gatekeepers seek to protect their fellow liberals, and their megaphone, mainstream media, from bright, coherent conservative criticism. In any event, what Star-Tribune editorial editors did to Goldberg’s column is revealing as heck. Read on to see
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Freedom of the Press."
I don't know why I'm surprised, but I am. I should have expected that they do this, but it never even occurred to me.
This President's greatest legacy may be the exposure of the commie left monopoly in the press.
Their 40 year pretense of objectivity is gone.
But their power still remains, and the plug must be pulled, now.
Did Johan Gldberg know this was going to happen? DId he consent? Did he have a chance to review the edits? He may not have wanted to ahve his article censored in this way.
I'll assume the liberal rag never even asked.
Johan Goldberg kinda has a ring to it...
Interesting. It would be clearer if the original were posted with the stricken parts visibly stricken. Anybody with time on their hands this afternoon? :)
Nothing new about liberal media trying to "protect" the American people from points of view that run contrary to their own dogma...
If it was like most of his writing, I'd guess they were cutting out run-on sentences and his endless "I'm so cute and hip" references. The guy just never learned to write.
But it MUST... be done by the people. Every instance of their censoring/twisting of truth must be exposed for the agenda they so promiscuously promote. They are socialists... and America must be advised that they are manipulating the news for their own self-interest..
Few newspapers will buy a column they do not have the right to edit in any way they see fit. It is extremely rare for a columnist to have the right to write the headline for his column. Only a few have that right in their contracts.
Conservative columnists should, as a group, demand not to be redacted. Make it a condition of syndication. So what if liberals don't do that.
Breathtaking, maybe, but the editing out of “offensive” or “politcially incorrect” material is not shocking. The public is “on” to it. Besides, it’s not called liberal mainstream media for nothing, is it?
Great expose. I knew this stuff was going on, but it's good to see somebody finally bringing it to light. I hope this is the beginning of a regular exercise.
After Rather and CBS were exposed for their fraud you could only shake your head and imagine how many times the now-dying socialist newsrooms GOT AWAY with forgeries and fraudulent "evidence" over the decades. Now you can only wonder how many good columns were "sanitized" over the decades in order to protect liberal Democrats and their talking points.
It's a disgrace.
Yep, the liberals version of free speech.
Ooh. Very Good!
Jonah will hopefully put it back up on NRO and bold what Pravda In The Heartland chose to redact.
So, they could take a column and do this to it?:
Bill Clinton was not a very good president.
He was busy getting blow jobs instead of fighting terrorists.
In the mid-1990's, after several vetos, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into reality, and finally approved welfare reform.
Freaking cowards, afraid of an opinion different from their own.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up what they do.
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.