Posted on 08/24/2002 3:34:29 PM PDT by blam
New York Times under fire over stance on Iraq
By Stephen Robinson in Washington
(Filed: 24/08/2002)
Leading hawks in Washington who back a military attack on Iraq have turned their guns on the New York Times, charging that America's most influential newspaper is deliberately distorting its news coverage to undermine the case for war.
There have been rumblings of concern within the Bush administration and rival sections of the press for some weeks, but the dismay has broken into the open with some trenchant criticism this week of alleged appeasement of Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times, reflecting the views of its predominantly liberal, metropolitan readership and editorial staff, has long been hostile to the Bush administration and to Mr Bush's presidential candidacy in 2000, with its leaders and star columnists almost unanimously hostile - and frequently scathing - about him and his circle.
But the charge is now more serious that the paper's news columns have been turned into propaganda instruments of the anti-war party.
Comments sceptical about the use of military force by once powerful Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, who served the first president Bush as national security adviser, have been highlighted with front page treatment, even though Mr Scowcroft has been out of the public eye for many years.
Last week the paper gave prominence to a report that the Republican Party was splitting over Iraqi policy, partly based on a highly selective interpretation of comments by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state.
The New York Times seized on some of Dr Kissinger's caveats to suggest he opposed an American attack, when in fact he had declared there to be "an imperative for preemptive action" against Saddam Hussein.
Other recent news stories have sounded the alarm that a war could wreck the American economy, while a selection of interviews with members of the public appeared skewed to suggest almost no Americans support military action, which is sharply at odds with opinion poll data.
Another story reminded readers that Washington sided with Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war, which would not have surprised many readers as it was common knowledge at the time.
Charles Krauthammer, a hawkish commentator in the Washington Post, thundered: "Not since William Randolph Hearst famously cabled his correspondent in Cuba and declared, 'You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war', has a newspaper so blatantly devoted its front page to editorialising about a coming American war."
By convention, American newspapers have opinionated editorial pages while the news pages are supposed to be "objective", though in practice most big city newspapers reflect a faint liberal bias.
Critics blame the editor, Howell Raines, a southern liberal who took over a year ago after running the opinion pages and now seems to be changing the whole paper's outlook.
The Bush administration loathes the paper, as was obvious during the 2000 campaign when Mr Bush was caught on microphone referring to a well-known New York Times reporter as "a major league asshole", a slip which seemingly did him no harm with the public.
LOLOLOLOL
The British are always good for a laugh aren't they? Anybody who calls a NY Times reporter an asshole goes up 10 points immediately on my rating system.
This is a noteworthy article, coming as it does from a sober British publication. But is there really something special about the Times' distortion of coverage on Iraq?
I suppose if you ignore the Times' coverage of the latter Clinton years, impeachment, the 2000 campaign, gun control, affirmative action, and, well, the institution of private property itself, you might see some unusual reporting on the subject of Iraq. But if not, where's the news story here?
Critics blame the editor, Howell Raines, a southern liberal who took over a year ago after running the opinion pages and now seems to be changing the whole paper's outlook.
Which critics are these?! Is there anyone outside of Great Britain who thinks the Times became a liberal propaganda organ a year ago?
Though the paper has long had its slant and distortions, I will say that its coverage became even more blatantly partisan during the 2000 campaign. The last few panels of any facade of "objectivity" fell away that fall. Since then it's been open war on the Bush Administration.
But can any of this be new information to any literate adult? Should I discuss the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow as well?
No, but there are signs that it is getting more and more shameless every day. It was bad before, but even worse now. They don't even PRETEND to be objective.
In some ways it's a good sign. They are getting pretty sleazy and desperate, and it may boomerang on them.
"Faint" liberal bias? The word "faint" must have some meanings in British usage which it lacks in America. "Unrelenting"? "Strident"? "Undisguised"? "Pro-homosexual"? "Pro-feminist"?
Yup. Me too. I will 'will' my war supplies to my son.
Let me propose a definition of "a faint liberal bias". This is what happens if a rightwing view is expressed in the newspaper, the liberals faint. That is 'a faint liberal bias'.
"The Bush administration loathes the paper, as was obvious during the 2000 campaign when Mr Bush was caught on microphone referring to a well-known New York Times reporter as "a major league asshole", a slip which seemingly did him no harm with the public."
Adam Clymer was and is such an asshole, that his name now means asshole, e.g. "That guy is such a clymer."
In defense of the honorable name of "Clymer" this post is to set the record straight.
George Clymer, from Pennsylvania, was a signer of Declaration of Independence AKA:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN GENERAL CONGRESS ASSEMBLED
Calumny of the Clymers must end!
/FYI
Who had the directional microphones, if not private news media?
Why would the possessors of the directional microphones release the information, if they were not employed by private media?
I'm open minded, but I'm curious. Please tell.
But it was still a good lesson for him. As President, he needs to be aware that directional microphones will always be pointed at him from somewhere and that there is no such thing as a private conversation outside a room that hasn't been swept.
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.