Skip to main content

View Diary: The Plight of the Ukrainian People (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I also like her characterization of the NYT. (8+ / 0-)

    "The mouthpiece of American imperialism."

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:31:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We'll to be fair (8+ / 0-)

      The New York Times has never met a US war it didn't like, remember Judith Miller, and the Iraq War non-apology?

      •  Syria, Iran, Vietnam . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are among the wars that the NY Times editorial board has argued against.  It's criticisms of the Iraq War were muted before the invasion, but the paper didn't maintain that position for long.

        Judith Miller is gone from the NY Times as well.

        In terms of its pre-war reporting, only Knight-Ridder, now McClatchy, covered itself in any glory.  

        But NY Times is nowhere near as hawkish as the Washington Post has become.  On balance the NY Times tends to be fairly skeptical of wars that don't include a broad base coalition.

        It would be accurate to say that the Washington Post editorial board hasn't met a war that it didn't like in the past 15 years.  It's not accurate to say that of the NY Times.

        •  There war that little (0+ / 0-)

          Sarin attack vector analysis, "pushed" for two days as evidence "the line was crossed",  then "semi-retracted" on page 8,

          The Dorian and Boots op eds,

          Completely uncritical reporting on the "official" US line along with the usual anonymous US officials,  

          The New York Times coverage, while not blatantly for military action in Syria, does perfectly match the Government line on Syria, just as it matched Bush's, the only difference is the Obama Administration is unsure what to do in Syria.

          As an example, The New York Times published a fear mongering "administration" sourced report that Syria was going to miss the deadline on chemical weapons, with out once mentioning, what was commonly known in the milblogs, that the reason the deadline would not be met, is the US provided ship tasked with disposing of the CW, was over a month behind schedule.

          In this run up to war, so far,  5 times the New York Times has published anti-Russian op-eds getting basic facts about the Georgian South Osetta War wrong, that if corrected, would have left the op-eds with out a leg to stand on.

          If you check the Times history, you will find they were pro-Vietnam War right up to The Pentagon Papers,

          Ten years later -- with Powell’s speech a historic testament of shameless deception leading to vast carnage -- we may not remember the extent of the fervent accolades. At the time, fawning praise was profuse across the USA’s mainline media spectrum, including the nation’s reputedly great mainline papers

          The New York Times editorialized that Powell “was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein’s Regime.”

          •  The government line is also perfectly matched . . (0+ / 0-)

            by the UN line and a number of other independent observers with respect to Syria.

            The NY Times reporting in Iraq was crap in the run up to the war, but Judith Miller is now working for Fox, not NY Times.  Michael Gordon is still there and I take his reporting with caveats.  The editorial board though tends to be restrained with respect to the use of military force.  It reflects a view of the world that is internationalist, but more in the mold of multi-lateralism of George H.W. Bush, Clinton, or even Obama.  

            However, talk to Neo-Cons or hardcore AIPAC members or Israeli hardliners and tell them that the NY Times is a hawkish right-wing news outlet that hasn't found a war it didn't love and they will laugh in your face.  I don't agree with far-right groups in the U.S. on much, but that is one issue where I suspect they and I will probably agree.  (i.e. that the NY Times is pretty liberal and not the very hawkish).

            It's pretty obvious though that you are very sympathetic to Putin and Russian imperialism, so I appreciate that there is really nothing that I can say that will change your view about ground facts.  

            This whole discussion is beyond absurd.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Media (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Elections (27)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Culture (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • Climate Change (18)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site