"Op" doesn't mean a formal Israeli operation. What it means is that the New
York Times is obsessively preoccupied with the problems and interests of Israel
compared to those of other foreign governments around the world. This
obsession explains why it went along with neocon schemes for an Iraq War with
nary a peep of protest or any honest investigative journalism, such as that
conducted by Knight Ridder.
Most of us who are regular readers of the Times, and who know well the specific
content of the writers I mentioned, don't need to perform a content analysis of
the paper for a few decades to understand precisely from where they are coming.
But a content analysis could be done, that's for sure. Taking a close look at
the affiliations of all those "journalists" and pundits who promoted the Iraq
War in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post in the years 2002
and 2003 would be revealing indeed. Most of them were not associated with the
India lobby or the Japan lobby or the France lobby. Most of them were in fact
associated with neocon think tanks and research centers.
You might start with Judith Miller's connections to Lewis Libby, Laurie Mylroie
and the AEI (American Enterprise Institute).
tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Still
waiting for the "irrefutable proof" that "The New York Times is an
Israeli/neocon op." I'm not sure how listing names amounts to "irrefutable
proof" that a major newspaper is an operation of a foreign government.
Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can think of six major items of proof off the
top of my head:
1. A.M. Rosenthal
2. David Brooks
3. Judith Miller
4. Michael Gordon
5. Thomas Friedman
6. William Safire
The New York Times has prominently promoted the neoconservative agenda for
decades now, including most recently the Iraq War, by offering leading neocons
a prominent voice on its pages, both in "reporting" (Miller and Gordon) and in
the op-ed section (Rosenthal, Safire and Brooks). Please don't try to make the
argument that the Times is simply being balanced by presenting both liberal and
conservative views -- the Times rarely publishes the views of traditional
conservatives.
The predominant weight of the New York Times was behind the Iraq War -- at no
time did this supposedly eminent journalistic institution perform due
diligence in questioning the neocons about their crackpot logic for the war.
They were given a free ride.
Compare the Times on the run-up to the war with the honest reporting and
analysis at Knight Ridder.
The New York Times and the Washington Post are two neocon peas in a pod.
No matter: mainstream media outlets are history. If they hadn't burned
themselves with dishonest journalism, and ruined their credibility on the rocks
of the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, the Internet would
have taken them down anyway. No loss here whatever; all gain. New York Times
hirelings are not competitive in the free marketplace of ideas.
tigerbengalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op, trying to pass itself off as a
"liberal" institution -- the algorithm couldn't be more simple.]
Elsewhere, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In fact, I never assert as fact that which isn't backed up by irrefutable
proof. Why would anyone want to appear to the world as someone who cannot
distinguish fantasy and speculation from hard fact?
REPLY
Can you provide the "irrefutable proof" for your statment above re: The New
York Times?
[The New York Times is an Israeli/neocon op,
trying to pass itself off as a "liberal" institution -- the algorithm couldn't
be more simple.]
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader:
The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
via Consortiumnews.com on Jul 30, 2007
The Bush administration is gearing up its Iraq War propaganda again, with the
New York Times back in its role as credulous straight man. On its op-ed page,
the Times published a pro-surge article by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth
Pollack, allowing the pair to present themselves as harsh critics of the Iraq
War grudgingly won over by the promising facts on the ground. Left out of this
happy tale of conversion was that O'Hanlon and Pollack have long favored a
beefed-up occupation of Iraq. July 30, 2007
Things you can do from here:
Visit the original item
on Consortiumnews.com
Subscribe to Consortiumnews.com using Google Reader
Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite
sites
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us.
