"all the news that's fit to print"
Isn't it interesting that the New York Times has finally decided to put pictures of what's happening in Iraq on the front cover--now that the tide is turning and both sides of the aisle have declared their non-confidence in the President's plan? I can't help but question the validity of a newspaper that calls itself the 'paper of record' when the only thing it seems capable of is riding the tide.I've seen three days in a row now--on the front cover of our regional NY Times--pictures from Iraq. Where were these two years ago, two months ago even? Now that it's safe for the Times to have a position against the war they will. I personally find it repulsive.
Labels: news, the war in iraq
posted by Sat Purkh Kaur Khalsa @ 12:07 PM
2 Comments:
While your thesis is intriguing, I'm not sure that it's accurate. I was unable to go back to view the actual front pages of the NY Times from two years ago, but I was able to look at the front page stories from then. From the period of February 1 - 10, 2005, it was routine for a story on Iraq, which was often critical of the administration, to be on the front page. This is not to mention the many other stories on Iraq in other sections of the times. Hence, I'm not sure the data support your conclusion.
This is not to say that the Times didn't fumble the ball on being appropriately critical of the Bush administration during the time after 9/11 and into the early part of the Iraq war. As one of the top newspapers in the world, they have an obligation to continually be prodding whatever administration is in power, and to be skeptical of the political positions an administration takes. However, one of the consequences of 9/11 was to make New Yorkers in general, and I believe the Editors of the NY Times in particular, to seek vengeance for the assault on New York City and the killing of its citizens. After the initial shock of 9/11 wore off, the city was busting for a fight and our democratically elected officials (i.e., Bush & Company) cooked the intelligence (for its own reasons) and handed us Iraq as a scapegoat.
My belief is that the NY Times did make a mistake by their uncritical reporting on events and activities leading up to the Iraq War, and during the early part of the war itself. However, they eventually did recover and even excoriated themselves in the editorials section for being uncritical of the administration. They erred; and they acknowledged their mistake; and they're now back in the groove. We all make mistakes. We don't all own up to them. The NY Times did.
Thanks for your comments Partap. I'm probably responding from my own emotional bias in the recent months. Feeling that we're being kept from seeing what's really happening in order to continue the madness over there.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have a bias against the NY Times and it's showing, I'm afraid.
Post a Comment
<< Home