Skip to main content

View Diary: KSFO... New York Times Has a Dog in this Fight (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They say "you draw more flys with honey." (4+ / 0-)

    I’m a little late to the party but I’ve been giving this some thought for a long time and I want to weigh in about that waiting a year to print the NSA Story.

    Clicking on the link, The NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story for a Year is the claim;

    Keller did say, however, that the forthcoming publication of a book by one of the reporters who broke the story, James Risen, a book that apparently would have disclosed the secret surveillance, was not the reason the disclosure article was finally printed. (Calame appeared to display a certain incipient dubiousness about this statement.)

    It may sound plausible to some that the book coming out and scooping the paper was not the motive but I don’t buy it. The way I see it, the reason must have been James Risen’s book. How could they explain a reporter from their paper revealing such damaging evidence while they stayed mute?

    Keller probably just sold us out. Who knows what deal was cut behind closed doors. Perhaps a promise that the Republican smear campaign against the paper would let up. What we do know was that the paper gave Bush a pass for one year and the White House still went after the paper with a vengeance once they broke a story that was going to come out anyway.

    I feel that Bush stole the election by suppressing the NSA spying but instead of showing apperception for the present given, they got nasty for an event that couldn’t be stopped. Bush wanted to keep smelling clean. It wasn’t an option and his staff should have seen that, played nice and called in some more favors.

    But they were so used to getting their way that Bush sent out Alberto Gonzales to spew the same threats as Gabriel Schoenfeld on national television. So when they turned nasty, not only did Bill Keller and Dean Baquet become enemies, the rest of the media realized that this White House administration was just too dangerous. Thank goodness for small favors.

    When Bush sent Abu Gonzo out one Sunday morning in May of 2006 to make a direct threat to the staff of the New York Times it was an all around bad move.

    It was also a repeated pattern, when cornered, these rats get dangerous.

    I see that bad move as a milestone in the Democratic takeover of Congress. The day the media realized that for the sake of the media, they had to get some oversight in November. Bush rolled his weighted dice and it finally came up "Snake Eyes."

    The news and entertainment empire never showed much concern for Bush’s threats against the people because the people are meaningless to them but Bush was menacing the media. Not just going after a mere anchorman like Dan Rather that could be hung out to dry. They were going after one of their own, an executive.

    Maybe I’m wrong but I fell that without the Gonzales threat, Bill Clinton’s evisceration of Chris Wallace and FOX News would not have been repeated hundreds of times on every station. Condie’s claim that Clinton left "no plan against terrorist" in place would not have gotten as much coverage. The media we all knew was much more favorable to the Democrats and on the Friday after Bill Clinton they turned Foley into a three ringed circus.

    The MSM certainly didn’t convert to unbiased news but it seems that Abu Gonzo helped balance things out.

    Those Repugs ain’t so smart after all because they don’t know how to treat their friends.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site