A Spanish Inquisition

[wolf]

So you dislike them because they challenge your opinions, rather than agree with them?

[tw]

Originally Posted by slang

In the interest of my own personal curiosity, I'll make it a point to read and digest more from the NYT in the coming months.

It seems pretty remote that they are biased in both directions but I'd like to evaluate that for myself.

The NY Times had been going through some re-evaluations at the highest levels. The fact that they would do so is healthy. But what bothers me is the silence when it comes to results of that evaluation.

For example, the NY Times was rather shocked at how badly they got the Iraq war and WMDs so wrong. How they had believed president's lies. Part of that evaluation noted how information provided by Judith Miller was given more credence than reports from so many other reporters who we now know were accurate about no WMDs and other justifications for war.

NY Times performed that evaluation. What happened? I have not heard. However we do know some interesting history from what happened at a press club speech by Judith Miller. After being released from prison, she received a standing ovation from her peers. But after telling her story, the applause was described as 'only polite'. Just from facts in her own speech combined with what we knew, the press quickly realized that Judith Miller was a pawn of a political agenda - and not some reporter driving deep for the irrefutable fact. Why then did the NY Times editors not see this?

Well the editors had been suspicious. They tried to redirect Miller to other stories. But her contacts in the White House kept feeding her stories that NY Times editors just could not ignore. Their mistake - they did not demand her notes. And when they eventually did demand those notes, Judith Miller refused. Something that only a reporter with something to hide would do. What did she need hide? Just more to a story and a NY Times executive review we have not learned.

Meanwhile we know this would never happen in Fox News. Such a review would be completely contrary to principles defined by their founder- Murdoch. The well stated purpose of Fox News is to promote a political agenda - as was a purpose, for example, of 1950/1960 CA newspapers.

What we really need understand is why the NY Times was so easily deceived by lies that created the "Mission Accomplished" war.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by wolf

So you dislike them because they challenge your opinions, rather than agree with them?

If you're referring to me and Fox, I just cannot recall any 'news' channel in the past few decades where the hosts accuse members of congress of treason every two weeks.

I don't think I have ever used the T-word to describe anyone I disagree with. I never used it on my conservative friends and acquaintences when they gave their opinions of Clinton.

It's bad enough that an 'outsider' like Coulter uses it, but when regular hosts pull it out show after show, that shows real over-the-top bias to me. I would say the same of any left-wing show that made the same claim about Bush.

Impeachable incompetant, yes. Traitor, no.

BTW, even TW uses the phrase 'anti-American' rather than 'traitor'. There is a difference.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by richlevy

If you're referring to me and Fox, I just cannot recall any 'news' channel in the past few decades where the hosts accuse members of congress of treason every two weeks.

I stopped watching Fox after the first rBGH/Akre/Wilson lawsuit. My opinion of their "news" has gone downhill from there.

[slang]

Originally Posted by tw

How they had believed president's lies.

We're Talking about WJC here, right? I thought that the NYT started running stories about Iraq becoming a threat sometime in 1998.

It Wasn't Just Miller's Story

" A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000)."

Each of these stories need to be verified in my own evaluation of the NYT, but without digging into each story, it seems that the "Bush lied" accusation is on shakey ground.

If there is one thing that I'm totally sure of it's that I'm wrong in thinking this and I'm reasonably sure that you will explain why.

It seems that I have to actually subscribe to get the archives.

[tw]

Originally Posted by slang

I thought that the NYT started running stories about Iraq becoming a threat sometime in 1998.

It Wasn't Just Miller's Story

I don't understand your point. Stories about threats from Iraq predated 1990. So what? We are not talking about a time when the NY Times provided both background of the threat and reasons why the threat did not exist. We are discussing a time when the NY Times literally quashed or buried (in back pages) stories that factually demonstrated George Jr myths of a Saddam threat. And no, I never said Judith Miller wrote those stories. But she "kept feeding her stories that NY Times editors just could not ignore." The problem in 2002 was that NY Times editors did not challenge those sources AND did not demand Miller's notes. This also when editors that should have come from where the work gets done were not the editors in charge.

But again, I don't understand your point about 1998 articles. For example, your article from 25 Aug 1998 entitled "US Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan" sat adjacent to another article entitled "A Moderate Thinks US Shot itself in the Foot". So in 1998 the NY Times was providing contrary perspective. We now know that second article was quite accurate. IOW the NY Times back then provided background information from both perspectives - a practice that was not ongoing in 2002.

We know from 2004 articles that much of the information in those 2002 news reports were literally based upon lies and too often fabrications from the George Jr administration. The aluminum tube story is a perfect example of an administration that knew facts to be otherwise - but promoted lies about those aluminum tubes anyway?

Your article from 20 Nov 1998 entitled "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say" also quote experts such as Charles Duelfer who said the UN Commission and cooperation of adjacent countries insure that Iraq could not build prohibited weapons. Today we know Charles Duelfer was accurate. IOW your cited article cites many rumors BUT also cites why the WMDs were not possible. It goes further to mention offshore contracting was more difficult to detect and police.

But again, the 1998 NY Times article provided multiple perspectives including the perspective that was proven accurate.

Meanwhile what did the NY Times not do in 2002? As scientists repeatedly demonstrated - too many times with too many facts - that those aluminum tubes could not be used for WMDs AND that those aluminum tubes were perfect for counterfeit Medusa rockets. Instead the NY Times did not report that reality until 2004.

Of course I am only repeating what every Cellar Dweller would have known back then or are finally (grudgingly) admitting today. Other sources provided doubts that the NY Times failed to provide; as summarized in a previous post:

A soldier's viewpoint
It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense. Military analysts even demanded to see the only evidence George Jr had that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. The only evidence were speculations about aluminum tubes. Today we know that technical analysts by the dozens were correct - those tubes were only for making rockets - to duplicate an Italian rocket called Medusa. Even the company (Zippe?) who made centrifuges that George Jr claimed Saddam was duplicating said those aluminum tubes were wrong - completely wrong - for uranium processing. ...
Miltary analysts demanded to see the evidence and found it lacking. Repeatedly, those who know how the work gets done were upset with the mental midget president's decision to invade Iraq. It made no logical sense. That is painfully obvious with what the retired generals were saying back then. An Iraq invasion was not justified. Franks was correct to be angry. Even back then, a war with iraq was obviously wrong - once you eliminate the propaganda from the White House ...

Where was the NY Times when other sources (writing reports that many here declared as lies) were writing the truth about Iraq? The George Jr administration literally lied to justify a war in Iraq. Those aluminum tubes are the perfect example of how far they would lie.

The NY Times did not report the accurate story; instead gave too much credence to administration lies until 2004 when the NY Times began to suspect what are typically management (editorial) problems. Judith Miller being a symptom of the NY Times unable to see through repeated administration lies about Iraq - and playing catchup starting in 2004.

But again, what is your point? Your previously cited (1998) articles did provide multiple perspectives. The NY Times in 2002 (and apparently under undo influence of people such as Judith Miller) did not provide what we now know to be accurate facts. Those aluminum tubes being a classic example of administration lying (along with uranium from Niger) that the NY Times did not properly report. If that news source did not include what American scientists were saying and did not include those tubes were perfect for manufacturing rockets, then that new service had a problem. 2002 NY Times did not do its job. They parroted what we know now were administration lies.

Meanwhile, Fox News (I bet) still will not admit the lies about those aluminum tubes. A fact that should strike fear in those who still listen to Fox News for accurate reporting.

[slang]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't understand your point. Stories about threats from Iraq predated 1990. So what? We are not talking about a time when the NY Times provided both background of the threat and reasons why the threat did not exist. We are discussing a time when the NY Times literally quashed or buried (in back pages) stories that factually demonstrated George Jr myths of a Saddam threat.

My point is that I'm going to actually read the NYT completely more often. There have been times that they say things that have turned out to be less than truthful and have been ridiculed for it.

I'm sure that they do excellent reporting in the "old, factual" way. It's now on my favs list to read.


Sorry for the late reply but when I get the call to split, I'm normally scrambling to get on scene and set up for about a month.

Cheney says Wie Gehts....er, I mean Hello.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I remember it better than you do, Mari: it's Savakh.

The Shaw of Iran, I suppose, would be a Farsi-speaking satirical playwright with spectacles and a white beard.

Kinda fun, but come on, people: Google more before you post. You don't have to be this risible, this easily.