Propagandists First, Journalists Second-How the New York Times Won 2004 for Bush

Propagandists First, Journalists Second

How the New York Times Won 2004 for Bush

By Ted Rall


21/05/08 "ICH" -- -- Should the news media be patriotic? When a journalist uncovers a government secret, which comes first–national security or the public’s right to know?

In the United States, reporters consider themselves Americans first, journalists second. That means consulting the government before going public with a state secret. “When I was at ABC,” James Bamford told Time in 2006, “we always checked with the Administration in power when we thought we had something of concern, and there was usually some way to work it out.”

In a new book about the Bush Administration’s efforts to expand the president’s powers at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, the assumption that the press shouldn’t publish security-sensitive stories is so hard-wired that New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau accepts it as a given. But it’s a very American concept, and one that relies on the presumption that the U.S. government may make mistakes, but is largely a force for good. In other countries, the relationship between rulers and the press is strictly adversarial.

In “Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice” Lichtblau unwittingly relates a depressing parable–his seeming obliviousness to conflict of interest is a bummer–describing the nation’s most prominent newspaper’s willingness to keep secrets for government officials, who turn out to be (shocker alert·) lying. It’s a cautionary tale about journalistic nationalism, one of many (Judith Miller, anyone?) in which the Times transformed itself into Bush’s political slut.

A whore, at least, would have demanded money.

more...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19969.htm

I hope there will not be complete exemptions for so-called journalists and their bosses.

K&R

That liar should be indicted for Murder One and held accountable for her crimes.

the transmitter at the debate was confirmed by a NASA scientist? I would love to read that story


<snip>

Remember, this was late 2004. The U.S. had invaded Iraq in March 2003, a year and a half earlier, but the WMDs had never turned up. The paper’s own editorial page had been ranting on and on about the Administration’s perfidy. Credibility? What credibility? Besides, it wasn’t as if Bush was the first First Fibber. All presidents are serial liars. So are their subordinates. Why would the Times, or anyone else, believe them about anything?

By then, of course, Bush had won a second term. To some extent, he owed his victory to the “liberal” New York Times more than to Karl Rove. The Times, Extra! Magazine reported later, had also sat on another late-breaking “October Surprise” story that might have caused enough voters to change their minds to vote for Democrat John Kerry in 2004. That suspicious rectangular bulge in Bush’s jacket during his debate with Kerry, a NASA scientist who is an expert on such things had told the Times, was indeed an electronic transmitter that allowed Bush to receive remote coaching from Rove or someone else.

“A Times journalist, who said that Times staffers were ‘pretty upset’ about the killing of the story, claims the senior editors felt was ‘too close’ to the election to run such a piece,” reported Extra!.

The government doesn’t tell the truth to reporters, even on “background.” Why shouldn’t the media tell the truth to the American people?

though it makes me want to vomit seeing how the media sheltered that fucking war criminal time and again!

:grr:

:puke:

Press Release

New York Times Killed "Bush Bulge" Story

11/5/04

November 5, 2004


Five days before the presidential election, the New York Times killed a story about the mysterious object George W. Bush wore on his back during the presidential debates, journalist Dave Lindorff reveals in an exclusive report on this week's CounterSpin , FAIR's weekly radio show. The spiked story included compelling photographic and scientific evidence that would have contradicted Bush's claim that the bulge on his back was just a matter of poor tailoring.

"The New York Times assigned three editors to this story and had it scheduled to run five days before the election, which would have raised questions about the president's integrity," said Lindorff. "But it was killed by top editors at the Times ; clearly they were chickening out of taking this on before the election."

Lindorff says two other major newspapers, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times , also decided not to pursue the story, which featured a leading NASA satellite photo imaging scientist's analysis of pictures of the president’s back from the first debate.

The Times ' bulge story is the latest example of possible self-censorship by major news media during the election campaign. In September, CBS 's 60 Minutes decided to delay until after the election an investigative segment that questioned the Bush administration's use of forged Niger uranium documents in making its case for the Iraq war, saying that "it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election" (New York Times , 9/25/04; FAIR Action Alert , 9/28/04).

And on September 10, CNN reporter Nic Robertson said of a CNN documentary on Saudi Arabia, "I don't want to prejudge our executives here at CNN ... but I think we can be looking forward to shortly after the U.S. elections." The segment is now scheduled to air this Sunday, five days after the election.

Lindorff first broke the story of "the bulge" in Salon (10/8/04). His latest report, "Was Bush Wired? Sure Looks Like It," was published October 30 on MotherJones.com (www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/11/10_407.html ).

CounterSpin provides a critical examination of major media stories every week, exposing issues the mainstream press misses. It is heard on more than 130 noncommercial stations across the United States and Canada, and can also be heard on FAIR's website.

To listen to Lindorff's CounterSpin interview (available in Real Audio in MP3 format), go to: www.fair.org/counterspin/110504.html. The interview begins 17 minutes and 30 seconds into the show.



http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2000