« Let's Establish A Dialogue Caption Contest | Main | Miracle »
June 12, 2007
NY TimesWatch: "Real, But Inaccurate" Edition
Ah, history... for those who refuse to learn from it, it must feel like deja vu all over again! James Taranto was paying attention the day the Times unveiled what he called "what may be the greatest headline ever"?
Fake but accurate! If this is the New York Times' new standard of journalism, does it apply to all stories, or only the ones that seek to make President Bush look bad?
Taranto's snarky quip turned out to be dead on, if perhaps not in the way he intended. Under the visionary leadership of Bill Keller, the Times' unique flexible urban sensibility resulted in a deft, edgy journalistic vision in which, if law enforcement succeeds in foiling terrorists before they kill innocent civilians or destroy property, readers of the New York Times can expect to read about all about it on Page One!!!
Unless, of course, the so-called "plot" happens to unfold right in their back yard. Then the story languishes in well-deserved obscurity on Page 30-something. It takes a finely honed journalistic instinct to make the really tough calls. According to industry insiders, , it's all a matter of timing:
The Times garnered controversy last weekend by burying the terror threat story in the Metro section, not the national news section. By contrast, two out-of-town newspapers, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, gave it front-page play."I asked Marty Gottlieb, the weekend editor and the senior editor in the newsroom when the decision was made, and Geddes, who made the call from home, for more detail about their thinking."Gottlieb told me he was mindful of a history of orange alerts that came at politically convenient times and previous terror plots that wound up amounting to less than they first seemed.
"This time, Times reporters were hearing skepticism from sources in the government, Gottlieb said, and he became even more concerned that the newspaper not 'buy into the hype on an issue where stories have frequently been overstated.''
We can understand their caution. It must be terribly difficult for a major national newspaper to explain to its readers why it relentlessly hyped a story that turned out to be inaccurate. In fact, the only thing worse than trying to explain how a story could be fake, but accurate would be trying to explain how the President of the United States convinced real people to plot attacks on real targets just for his own personal convenience! For a man with all the awesome intellectual prowess of a mildly retarded chimp, that takes some doing!
The good news is, we needn't pay any attention to any of this since sinister law enforcement types in the pay of Karl Rove cynically leaked the news of these real, yet completely harmless (since they were foiled before they ever came to pass) "attacks"!
OLBERMANN, AT 8:29 PM: Since last August, there had been a period of calm, the screaming, hair-on-fire pronouncements about terror plots, that may have had real plotters but no real conceivable chance of actually happening, had ceased.
Even if law enforcement had allowed several very large containers of jet fuel to be ignited, there would have NO, I repeat, NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN. No doubt that story, too, would have been buried on page 30 along with the customary congratulations by the Times to state and federal law enforcement on a job well done. Move along. Nothing to see here.
And the best news of all is that our very own news media (who, by the way, are NOT engaging in any sort of attempt to keep the facts from us) have once again protected us from crass, cynical partisan manipulation by burying the story!
Because otherwise New Yorkers, as opposed to residents of Washington and LA, might get scared.
If you are not a subscriber to the NY Times, you might be feeling a tad left out just about now, but never fear - the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal has got your back. In these perilous political times a great paper must, above all else, be flexible and thus it would seem the Journal has wisely decided to kneel at the feet of the great masters of the Kama Sutra school of journalism.
Look on their handiwork O Ye Mighty, and despair:
Mr. Gates seems to think he can succeed as the anti-Rumsfeld by appeasing the likes of Mr. Levin, but his kowtow only makes Mr. Bush look weaker as a Commander in Chief who can’t even select his own war generals.
Apparently the Journal has adopted a more nuanced reading of the Constitution in which the literal text can be disregarded and long passages from Walt Whitman substituted at will:
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.
James Joyner, who tragically failed to get far enough outside the beltway to elude the very Pentagon mind-control rays which rendered Pete Pace tragically unsuited for further service, has the temerity to disagree:
...but he can’t select his own generals. Not by himself. We have this little thing called “separation of powers” and “checks and balances.” For those of you who missed that day in Civics class, here’s a refresher.Article II of the Constitution provides that, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States” and that “he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
Even when listing these presidential powers, the Framers made it clear that most of the authority derived from Congress. Further, Article I assigned Congress all manner of powers over military affairs. Aside from declaring war, the legislature was empowered “To raise and support armies;” “provide and maintain a navy;” “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;” “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.”
The fact that Pace is widely considered a Yes man and might well not survive Senate scrutiny is a perfectly valid reason to decide against renominating him. Unpopular presidents leading unpopular wars have less ability to ram appointments through Congress, especially when the opposition party has taken control of that institution. That’s not turning the system on its head; that is the system.
What on earth is he thinking? If we didn't know better we'd say that sounded like common sense.
With things looking grim on the war front and conservatives turning on each other right and left, the last thing we need right now is rationality. No sir.
What we need is a lot of screaming and running about. We need a lot of finger pointing and who shot Johns. We need to run down our own side before the other side can do it to us, because Lord knows they're not doing a good enough job. If we work hard enough, maybe we can get a stampede going.
Really get those poll numbers down into the toilet.
Yep. Some days it just seems like deja vu all over again, doesn't it? Especially when we fail to think about our own role in the process.
Posted by Cassandra at June 12, 2007 08:18 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1596
Comments
It is just another case of liberals in power buying in to the hysterical nature of the Nutroots.
Yet, had this plot gone down, the Times would have trumpetted it on the front page in large, bold print, and within the first three paragraphs, would have been blaming Bush for not stopping the plot.
As far as jet fuel goes, I was working this summer job that had us traveling past the airport in Philly, and there was a fire at an oil tank. Authorities had the road closed, and were spraying foam copiously, so as to avoid the fire getting across the road to the jet fuel. They sure seemed alarmed.
Posted by: William Teach at June 12, 2007 09:09 AM
That's funny. I read the Journal piece as lashing Gates for not being sufficiently loyal to Pace, rather than as an attack on Bush for being weak. It seemed to me they were trying to stiffen the spine to stand up to Levin's demands, for example by pointing out that he couldn't really be appeased anyway.
In other words, the piece read to me in much the same way that this one does: except that instead of the Journal criticizing Gates, it's you criticizing the Journal. Both of you are trying to do the same thing, I think: reduce the willingness of others on the 'conservative' team to criticize each other in public. But you're both doing it by criticizing other conservatives in public.
That's fine with me -- sometimes criticisms are necessary. Sometimes, even, they are helpful. I don't think you're doing anything wrong, and may be doing something very right, in raising these criticisms; but I think that about the Journal, too.
It seems to me, in fact, that what we as a nation need is a lot more interfactional criticism. Liberals ought to be looking carefully at where their self-declared leaders are taking them. This is true for the political leaders, who are elected to serve only a small constituency (say, New York or Illinois) but are trying to lay claim to the entire Left; and it's true for the unelected leaders, the online Left, that is trying to bully even the political leadership into line.
By the same token, those who are not of the Left should be willing to criticize any "leader"; what matters are the principles. We need to look carefully at what people are saying and doing, as we're at a critical moment. I think you're right to raise the issue of the Constitutional separation of powers, for example; that was an unfair criticism on the part of the Journal. We ought to point that out. By the same token, I thought they were right to point out that it was a mistake to go squishy on Pace in order to "appease" Levin. Pace, and the military, deserved better.
Fair criticisms don't weaken us. They sharpen our understanding of what needs to be done.
Posted by: Grim at June 12, 2007 10:42 AM
I don't mind criticism Grim, but criticism ought to be sourced in something other than wishful thinking, don't ya think?
In the case of the Journal, the President doesn't get to "pick Generals single-handedly". You're right, fair criticisms don't weaken us. But this wasn't fair, and I'm not sure why the Journal felt the need to deploy a demonstrably unfair criticism that, furthermore, wouldn't even be taking place if a lot of people hadn't been piling on in the first place:
Unpopular presidents leading unpopular wars have less ability to ram appointments through Congress, especially when the opposition party has taken control of that institution. That’s not turning the system on its head; that is the system.
Posted by: Midwestern Clue Bat at June 12, 2007 11:17 AM
Heh. I just wanna know whose shooting at me?
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at June 12, 2007 03:58 PM
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at June 13, 2007 12:40 PM