[lit-ideas] Re: NYT in the news again
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:23:45 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 10/23/2005 11:20:06 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: NYT in the news again
>
> > A.A. How do you explain the NYT support for Bush and his war and
> > their intense dislike for Clinton. None of what our paper of record
> > published about Whitewater was true. How do you explain that?
>
> Andy,
>
> Are you talking about some current support for Bush on the part of the
> NYT? Let's see some evidence. Cite some editorials, news stories, or
> opinion pieces. (They have Tierny and Brooks for 'balance' as
> columnists, but their heavy hitters op ed are Bob Herbert and Frank
> Rich, and Paul Krugman has never met an Administration economic policy
> he liked.)
>
> On every matter of policy that I can think of since 9/11, the Times has
> editorially opposed Bush and his cronies. The letters page is about 9/1
> anti-Bush, a margin that shows (if the Times is consistent with other US
> papers) that that's near the actual break down, and that that 1/10 is
> pretty much the most they can squeeze out of their readership.
>
> Letting Judith Miller run wild was a disaster, and not looking behind
> the agit-prop on the runup to the Iraq invasion was another (although
> these two things are apparently closely related).
>
They can editorialize to their heart's content. It's their facts that are
the problem. Here's a newspaper that supports a war and never checks the
facts. The damage that invading Iraq did to the U.S., the lives it cost
Americans and Iraqis is downright criminal. Likewise regarding Clinton.
They ran the country on a five year long, $40 million joy ride over a
non-starter. Nonexistent WMD, nonexistent plots all pushed as facts. As
it turns out, Whitewater was only a warm up.
> Tell you what. If you, from up there on the banks of the Hudson, can
> cite one Times editorial from the past two years endorsing Bush, his
> policies, or his Administration, I'll send you from here on the banks of
> the Willamette, a native fish of your own choosing. Maybe even pack it
> in ice.
>
More like pack it in the NYT. That's what it's good for. Given the size
of their fishy reporting, you'll have to send me a blue whale. But since I
couldn't get one in my garage, not to mention all the bears I'd be fighting
off, we'd better pass on the fish.
Ahab Amago
P.S. The article does require registration.
> As for Clinton: what's that got to do with anything? Mike Geary, who has
> a wiser political head on his shoulders than Bill Keller ever will. And
> he shows little love for the Kid from Hope.
>
> See today's comment on the Miller/Iraq/Chalabi fiasco at
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/opinion/23publiceditor.html?n=Top%2fOpinio
n%2fThe%20Public%20Editor
>
> If you have to register to see this, let me know, and I'll cut and paste
> it for the list.
>
> Robert Paul
> Reed C ollege
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
