Attacking the Times, attacking democracy

When news broke last week that the administration had, since September 11, tracked the financial transactions of thousands of Americans to, in its words, fight terrorism, the Republican response was both predictably swift and predictably hypocritical. Setting the tone Monday was President Bush, who said, "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."

White House spokesliar Tony Snow followed his boss's lead in criticizing the New York Times, adding, "But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live, and whether in fact the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans." It didn't take long, accordingly, for right-wing pundits to parrot the White House's talking points, attacking the Times and, while doing so, chipping away at our fragile democracy.

Media Matters has compiled a distressing list of right-wingers attacking the Times over the story. Radio personality Melanie Morgan said, "I see it as treason, plain and simple ..." Our old friend Ann Coulter said of the story, "If that is not treason, then we're not prosecuting anymore." Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said the Justice Department has "an obligation to consider prosecution". Congressman Peter King urged the administration to prosecute the Times and other papers reporting the story, while the editors of the National Review demanded the White House revoke the Times's press credentials.

When they're not accusing the Times of treason or demanding that their reporters lose the right to cover Congress or the White House, pundits are otherwise disparaging the paper. The flaccid Rush Limbaugh said, "I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists." Michael Barone said, "Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack?" Said Heather McDonald, "By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat." Brent Bozell, Newt Gingrich and Morton Kondracke each made similar statements about the Times's physical proximity to the World Trade Center, a fact that should, in their words, remind staffers of what happened there five years ago this September.

While the hypocrisy inherent in any Republican accusing anyone of threatening our national security - Karl Rove, anyone? - is breathtaking, it's important to focus on the complaints aimed at the media in general and the Times in particular. Where were these complaints when the Times ran a front-page article on the Clintons' marriage? Was the right wing pleased with the Old Gray Lady then, when Patrick Healy penned an expose better left to the gossip rags? It sure seemed so, because between May 23 - when the article was first published - and June 1, Chris Matthews alone asked at least 90 questions to his guests about the piece. Questions to guests on both sides of the aisle pertaining to a completely irrelevant story, a story that distracted Americans from discussing, say, the administration's willingness to spy on them and do so in absolute secrecy.

Or, more importantly, where were these complaints when the Times harbored Judith Miller, whose shoddy reporting helped push this country to war with Iraq? Were Republicans pleased when Miller would take information fed her by Ahmed Chalabi, information he had also given the administration, and get confirmation from a "senior administration official", only to then see White House representatives point to her work as evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing? Or when Miller helped Scooter Libby conduct a coordinated retribution campaign against Joseph Wilson, a campaign that represented a far greater national security threat than any Times story has ever posed?

There were no complaints, you see, because the notion that "It's OK if you're a Republican" can be safely extended to "It's OK if you're helping a Republican". Or, in many cases, the entire administration. And the moment a news outlet, especially the Times, steps out of line and stops, in Republicans' minds, helping the administration, the attacks begin. Or, more accurately, the attacks continue. Because this White House and, by extension, the Republican Party has been at war with the media longer than it has with Iraq. A war that has been fought on myriad fronts.

Think about what this White House has done since 2001. As I wrote before, "They've released bad news when no one's paying attention. They've packaged official government releases as news stories. They've paid for stories at home and abroad that push their agenda. They've planted reporters in the White House press corps to ask softball questions. There have been whispers that they've been spying on journalists, too." None of it done, as I said then, to prevent illegal activity. All of it done to strong-arm the media into either silence or the recitation of administration talking points.

When a panicking administration that owns such a dismal record wishes its questionable activities to remain in secret, a shoot-the-messenger philosophy is a no-brainer. Why? Because, as you know, it both lets them shift the focus away from their dubious behavior to the demonized Fourth Estate and riles up an already frothy base. In this climate of gay marriage bans and flag-burning legislation, such a strategy is business as usual for the Republican Party. A strategy that leads many to perceive reporting questionable behavior as worse than the questionable behavior itself. But is that really the case? I think you know the answer to that question.

Is this outrage really about the leaking and reporting of sensitive material? No, because, if it were, the administration and its supporters would be leading the charge against those who printed the Valerie Plame information. This isn't about that. It's about an administration's contempt for a press corps that sometimes pokes holes in its veil of secrecy. It's about the White House's efforts to turn the typically servile media into the official house organ of the Republican Party and the Bush White House. It's about the slow, but steady, transformation from democracy to something we Americans will scarcely recognize if the administration is allowed to proceed unabated. And if that happens and history shows that we did nothing about it, the fault is as much ours as it is theirs.

my disgust runneth over.

The NYT has been brewing for a fight ever since it discovered what the WH did to it with Judy Miller. Finally, the WH stumbled into its trap. W. and Cheney pitched hissy fits. The usual right wing suspects went into rabid mode. The NYT went from being WH media puppet to courageous defender of liberty. Moral: the collective IQ of the editors at the NYT is way higher than the collective IQ of the people at the WH.

The wrath of the NYT is going to fun to watch. The Boston Globe editorial on 2-26 about how there needs to be an investigation into how Ohio 2004 was Stolen was priceless as was the 6-26 NYT piece about how China now has a law telling the press what news is fit to print. And the WaPo has a sympathy piece today about how one person can steal an election with E-vote fraud.

You would have thought that Cheney and Rove would have learned from Watergate never to f**k with a major newspaper.

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/060112.htm

As Hamlet said, "The lady doth protest too much."
In American bar room vernacular, "Whoever dealt it smelled it."
This stinks worse than Rove's breath after a session with Jeff Gannon.
Orin Hatch is light in the loafers.

and very much in-line with my own thoughts on this from yesterday.

Vyan

Standard operating procedure for this administration. Become Teflon. Bounce all of their crimes and wrongdoing back onto the entity that exposes it in the name of some cooked up injustice or threat to them or "national security". And for some reason a huge percentage of the population can't see through it. Or maybe the MSM just makes it seem that way since they just perpetuate all the Bush admin talking points and counter-attacks with barely a hint of any sane person turning the focus back where it belongs.
The "It's OK if you're a Republican" phenomonon is really interesting (infuriating). I read a nice little piece relating to this on http://www.dailyhowler.com/ If ALL the Republicans would take 10 minutes to stop and imagine if it were Clinton or any other Dem administration who was doing ALL the crap that this admin has pulled, how would they respond?? I think we all know the answer to that. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:hi: