My letter to the New York Times

bigbadwolf said:
Look at the circumstantial evidence. For instance, the NYT unquestioningly bought into the Iraqi WMD story, reporting it as if it were fact. Only much later -- when the damage had been done -- did it belatedly issue an apology for misinforming readers. The NYT today is close to being what Pravda was in Soviet times: the journal of official record. The trick is to convey the impression of critical and investigative journalism -- while being nothing of the sort. So an awful lot of brain-dead Americans -- *snicker* -- actually think the NYT is a lefty paper.

American media is an organ of the US state for practical purposes. Which is why people like me are watching Russia Today to find of what is happening in the USA.
Click to expand...

Unquestioningly? Are you sure?

Here are two paragraphs from an October 2002 Times' Editorial:

Given the cautionary mood of the country, it is puzzling that most members of Congress seem fearful of challenging the hawkish approach to Iraq. Many Democrats have somehow convinced themselves that their party will falter in next month's elections if they fail to show sufficient enthusiasm for going to war. Many Americans -- a majority, according to the Times/CBS poll -- say members of the Bush administration are trying to use the Iraq conflict to political advantage.
-​

Referring to the coming war vote in Congress, Mr. Bush said, ''Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' The country should hold him to that.​
​
​
 
bigbadwolf said:
Look at the circumstantial evidence. For instance, the NYT unquestioningly bought into the Iraqi WMD story, reporting it as if it were fact. Only much later -- when the damage had been done -- did it belatedly issue an apology for misinforming readers. The NYT today is close to being what Pravda was in Soviet times: the journal of official record. The trick is to convey the impression of critical and investigative journalism -- while being nothing of the sort. So an awful lot of brain-dead Americans -- *snicker* -- actually think the NYT is a lefty paper.

American media is an organ of the US state for practical purposes. Which is why people like me are watching Russia Today to find of what is happening in the USA.
Click to expand...

Unquestioningly? Are you sure?
Here are two paragraphs from an October 2002 Times' Editorial:

Given the cautionary mood of the country, it is puzzling that most members of Congress seem fearful of challenging the hawkish approach to Iraq. Many Democrats have somehow convinced themselves that their party will falter in next month's elections if they fail to show sufficient enthusiasm for going to war. Many Americans -- a majority, according to the Times/CBS poll -- say members of the Bush administration are trying to use the Iraq conflict to political advantage.
-
​
Referring to the coming war vote in Congress, Mr. Bush said, ''Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' The country should hold him to that.​
 
bigbadwolf said:
Look at the circumstantial evidence. For instance, the NYT unquestioningly bought into the Iraqi WMD story, reporting it as if it were fact. Only much later -- when the damage had been done -- did it belatedly issue an apology for misinforming readers. The NYT today is close to being what Pravda was in Soviet times: the journal of official record. The trick is to convey the impression of critical and investigative journalism -- while being nothing of the sort. So an awful lot of brain-dead Americans -- *snicker* -- actually think the NYT is a lefty paper.

American media is an organ of the US state for practical purposes. Which is why people like me are watching Russia Today to find of what is happening in the USA.
Click to expand...

No response from you?
 
JoeBlow said:
Still waiting on bigbadwolf.
Click to expand...

Sorry, just don't visit this site much these days. Have you any NYT from the 2002 period questioning the WMD story propagated by the administration? As I said in my previous post, the NYT bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Only much later -- when the damge had been done -- was a belated apology issued.
 
Don't know if my previous post made it through ....

If it didn't, was there any NYT editorial from the 2002 period questioning the administration's line on WMD? The NYT bought into this hook, line, and sinker. Only later, after the damage had been done, did it issue a belated apology.
 
Sometimes posts don't make it through for some inexplicable reason.
 
Am I not getting something, or were you talking about you didn't know anyhting about?
 
Look at your post (#11), where you cite my post on the NYT buying into the WMD story. I am consistently talking about that. You are moving to other areas -- your post on NYT questioning of the hawkish stance doesn't address the WMD point. Unless you address this, I'm bowing out of this "discussion" -- for which I had no enthusiasm in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top