This morning I woke up to read a remarkable, illuminating story in the New York Times about domestic spying in the United States. Then I read the editorial
Ban Torture. Period.
That editorial sort of made me think of the story the Times ran on torture recently -- you know, the one (repeated all around the world) about al-Libi and Iraq's (invented under duress) ties to Osama.
And then I opened my favorite blog to read about "The President's Press" and hear the same New York Times called a trashy tabloid. And not just a trashy tabloid, but one with moral culpability in grave criminal behavior. Does anyone else notice a disjunction here?
Guys and gals, let's do a quick survey of the front-page links everyday for a week, OK? If Markos and Co. see far, it is because they stand on the shoulders of giants at the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, and other icky organs of mainstream complacency.
I think Broder is a pompous ass and I agree with James Wolcott here:
So-called reputable journalists have completely forfeited their high horse when it comes to complaining about bloggers as a species of riffraff--they no longer have the right to lament bloggers' slapdash sourcing, to deplore their invective and lack of couth, to act as if they're civilized reporters forced to fend off laptop barbarians.
But can we all take a deep breath before deploring the New York Times as a contemptuous peice of right-wing filth? Can we possibly manage to pause for an hour between trumpeting the latest revelation from one of the grey ladies and turning around to debase her?
Blogging is the best thing to hit American politics since sliced bread and free beer at campaign rallies. But blogging isn't journalism and it isn't a replacement for journalism, and it's unbecoming for us to rip into the New York Times for every failing without at least acknowledging that this site -- along with every other site on the left side of the blogging aisle -- would be severely impoverished without the news that Judy Miller's colleagues print every morning.
We all loathe Judy Miller because she wasn't careful with her sourcing and her reporting. As a rule, we look to the New York Times as a place where people are going to be cautious about the facts. So I don't think we should turn around and stomp on their faces for being overcautious in one instance -- especially before we have all the facts of the case.
By all means, give 'em hell on the points where they have failed. But let's keep some perspective. I'm a teacher in China right now, and none of my 20something students have any idea whatsoever that their government gunned down protesting farmers not far from Hong Kong last week. They don't believe me when I relay the news, because it isn't in any of their papers.
There is such a thing as an entirely bankrupt national media, and folks, we don't have that yet in the U.S. The New York Times is the source for a lot of the most important information that comes up on this page, and it deserves better than the contempt it's gotten today.