NY Times News Pages: Mouthpieces for Bush Administration

Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of the New York Times, writes:

Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground. But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

The answer is simple. The leadership at the New York Times is lacking. The editorship has gone from bad to worse with the departure of the awful Howell Raines to be replaced by the awful Bill Keller. The Times' leadership simply will not rein in the Judy Milleresque elements in its news operations. Perhaps this wake up call from the Public Editor can help change things.

< "Live Earth" Video Highlights | NSA Wiretap Issue Isn't Dead Yet >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, I can see that Hoyt is going to be (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:51:29 AM EST
    a good Public Editor.

    In any case, the quality difference between news and editorial has been a point of my fury since I've been reading the Times.

    More likely, (none / 0) (#2)
    by JHFarr on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    the Public Editor is about to be out of a job.

    That would be contempt of readers! (none / 0) (#7)
    by kovie on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:27:38 PM EST
    Which should immediately lead to impeachment proceedings against Keller, Pinch & whoever's currently running the op-ed pages now that Collins has left (or is about to leave)! But do we have the votes?!? Indeed...

    Calling Rupert Murdoch (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    If the WSJ doesn't work out the times may.

    The "liberal press" is a myth. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lora on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    Can you say, "sell out?"

    Now if only (none / 0) (#5)
    by TomStewart on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    they would stop printing the dictation they get from the military leaders in Iraq as news. Check out any of the articles 'written' by Michael Gordon for the Times about the war. They read just like the military press releases on Iraq. Glen Greenwald  at Salon.com has more.

    Every step the Times takes forward, they take two back.

    gee, i'm stunned to hear this..... (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    where have you people been for the past 15 years? this isn't a recent development, with the nyt's or the wp, they've been republican mouthpieces since the first clinton administration.

    both these papers beat a drum for the invasion of iraq, with only a mere passing glance beyond the scaly surface of mr. bush's public claims. they have consistently supported his policies, since his selection in 2000.

    it's only now, since bush has proven such a complete disaster (a disaster predicted by his entire life), that they've started to "question" their unfettered support for him.

    before that, they carried water for the republican congress, in its efforts to hamstring mr. clinton, by virtue of almost constant "investigations", the bulk of which turned out to be nothing.

    the myth of the "liberal" media, pushed by the right, is exactly that, a myth.