SIGN OF THE TIMES: INVENTING NEWS THAT DOESN'T EXIST....

Iconoclast ^ | Yale Kramer

[Apolitical]

As in the days of yellow journalism, the Times can now be counted on to deliver the paper's biases on any page and in any article....

[Apolitical]

The New York Slimes.

[martin_fierro]

Poing.

[=Intervention=]

The whole article...

September 18, 2003: Remember the infamous Hearst story about the Spanish-American War? In his race with Joseph Pulitzer for readership in New York City, Hearst more or less invented yellow journalism. The apocryphal story goes that he hired the illustrator Frederick Remington to cover the war in Cuba and sent him down there in 1897. When he got there Remington telegraphed Hearst: "EVERYTHING QUIET STOP NO TROUBLE HERE STOP THERE WILL BE NO WAR STOP WISH TO RETURN STOP REMINGTON." Whereupon Hearst fired back: "STAY PUT STOP YOU FURNISH PICTURES I'LL FURNISH WAR STOP HEARST."

In contrast, there was a time, many years ago, when the reputation of The New York Times meant something. It was "the paper of record," the "good gray lady" of American journalism, the paper everyone could count on to deliver the news and the facts a little more in-depth than the local tabloid -- not to mention less freighted with biased political opinion in its reportage than the Hearst Press. The Times was responsible enough in those days to keep its editorial opinion on the editorial page and its reporting factual and more or less free of bias.

Nowadays there is little difference between editorial comment and reportage. As in the days of yellow journalism, the Times can now be counted on to deliver the paper's biases on any page and in any article. Its reporters and editors have political views which color their reporting; and if necessary, they will create the facts to support their views.

A particular case in point appeared on September 15, 2003, highlighted by the headline "Across the U.S., Concern Grows About the Course of War in Iraq," by Adam Nagourney. The story was placed on the front page, above the fold, a space reserved for stories of the most serious and important kind. In it, Nagourney, in a more nuanced form of creative journalism, suggests that the people of America are not only "concerned" about the war in Iraq but discouraged, demoralized, and opposed to it.

The editors of the Times know that during a war -- any war -- the whole nation is and ought to be "concerned" with its vicissitudes, the safety of its soldiers, and its costs. They must know that there are times, in war, when things don't go well, as was the case many times during the Civil War, World War I, and World War 2. They must know that Viet Nam is not the only model for war. And yet Nagourney and his editors create a scenario in which they suggest to the reader that things are going poorly in Iraq and the people of America can't stand it for too much longer.

He created this story by telephoning around the country and finding seven classic hand-wringers to quote: Hele Spivack, Gary Sambrowski, Frank Jessoe, Paul McGill & wife Virginia, Betty Enfinger, Becky Bunting, and Mike Gallagher. Who these folks are and how Nagourney came to find them is left a mystery. But he extrapolates from their remarks that the rest of America is demoralized and ready to give up.

Unless the reader scrutinizes the language of the article as carefully as it was crafted, he or she will miss the subtle transformation of the word "concerned" to mean not just vitally interested, but discouraged and opposed. The innocent reader is thus taken on a rhetorical joyride. The author selects and quotes a group of people who are in reality defeatists but who are indentified by the author only as "concerned." And since common sense suggests to the reader that most Americans are or should be concerned about the war, he may be left with the notion that most Americans have become defeatist and opposed to it.

In addition, the reporter throws in the opinions of one or two Democratic presidential candidates who are opposed to the Administration's handling of the war and a few "experts" who happen to be academics, a group well known for their antagonism toward any kind of aggression except against the President.

However, Nagourney is compelled to acknowledge that even the most recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are not opposed to the war and continue to support the President in its pursuit, but he does choose to make much of the fact that the poll shows some loss of support.

In essence, the article is consistent with hundreds of other articles in the Times which emphasize anything that suggests that the Bush administration -- especially the Pentagon, Cheney, and Bush -- has made a bad decision or choice. It is remorseless in its coverage. Whatever is going well in this extremely complex undertaking is ignored altogether, or diminished.

What can we conclude from this exercise in creative journalistic propaganda? When William Randolph Hearst invented news, he did it to beat his competition, the New York World. But the publisher and editors of the Times have a more serious agenda. They really believe that they know what is right for America and are arrogant enough to try to make history rather than merely report it.

Yale Kramer, Co-Publisher, Horsefeathers

[livianne]

I never did like the NYT, even when i was much younger and didn't have much of a political leaning. My parents are fairly liberal (not off the edge liberal, but a little bit bleeding heart) and they always insisted that the NYT was the paper that any person wanting to be educated should read. It seems that people believing themselves to be highly intellectual are therefore induced to believe and follow anything told to them in such a highly intellectual format. Sort of an Emporor's new clothes thing - there's truly no substance, but they can't asmit there is nothing there, or they risk losing their intellectual status.

[Liz]

......the publisher and editors of the Times have a more serious agenda. They really believe that they know what is right for America and are arrogant enough to try to make history rather than merely report it. ......

Amen.

[IndianChief]

I wonder if they will ever stoop to the same levels the "Times of India" does here in India.

[Cronos]

And what is that?

[thucydides]

Bingo, you've got it in what your parents said. I believe most NY Times readers are people with some intellectual pretensions but who do not really think issues through carefully on their own. They see the Times as furnishing a source of authoritative socially acceptable opinions in the "right circles." I don't know how many times I have seen reasonably intelligent people repeating some utterly absurd thing that they have obviously picked up from the Times and accepted without stopping to think. In biblical times, "shibboleths" were passwords used for identification. So too in modern times - positions on issues are used primarily to signal one's membership in the group of good right thinking people. It is pure narcissism - "we agree to these things, we are with the good people who are sophisticated and thoughtful - not like those simple people with bad motives who betray themselves by admitting they diffently about certain issues." In fact, uncritical readership of the Times has become the badge of membership in the class of shallow intellectual wannabes who are in fact profoundly anti-intellectual without realizing it.

[Steve_Seattle]

There have been a LOT of these pseudo-news stories, emanating from both within and without Iraq, in which reporters find a disgruntled Iraqi or "concerned" American and treat their comments as gospel. This is propaganda, not news, and the news outlets who do this should be ashamed of themselves. You can go into any country in the world and find someone who's for or against something, and present their comments as "news," treating their comments as representative of public opinion or of a significant trend.

[Steve_Seattle]

Very well said. I see these people at the bus stop all the time. They go through life constantly looking over their shoulders to make sure that what they say and think gains approval from the "right" people.

[Steve_Seattle]

And these uncritical New York Times aficianados are the first to criticize Fox viewers as uncritical imbibers of propaganda. But the combative debate-style of Hannity and O'Reilly and Greta is the antithesis of the style of propaganda, in which opposing views are simply not heard.

[Post Toasties]

Very good article. But the author neglected to highlight another LW lie by pointing out the basic fact that there has been no war in Iraq for several months.

[livianne]

And the further left you go, the more important it is to be one of the group. The people i know that are really LW exist entirely in the reality of their group, and in the knowledge that the world depends on them. The concept that people are only responsible for themselves and their family and NOT every person in the country who is down on their luck is simply unconscionable. It would be a sad statement on their need to belong if it wasn't screwing up our country so badly.

[backhoe]

-The Old Grey Info-Slut... the NYT/Jayson Blair Affair--

[mel]

Excellent observation!