This morning as I trotted out to the curb and picked up my copy of the Times a little white sheet of paper informed me that my home delivery costs were going up in this time of "financial challenge" for so many across the nation.
It is, however, one of a number of steps we must take in order to secure the core qualities that define The Times and make it so highly valued by the most discerning readers.
Perhaps rather than raise my rates the New York Times ought to think about elevating the "core quality" of its reporting. Because adorning the front page today is an unintentionally revealing piece of journalism that demonstrates how easily a media outlet can slide into collusion.
The headline boldly declares "Guantanamo Hands GOP a Wedge Issue". A better title would read, "New York Times Capitulates to Limbaugh, Hannity." The article, written by David Kirkpatrick and David Herszenhorn, on its face tracks the propagandizing and demagoguery by the GOP on the Guantanamo issue. The problem is that in doing so it ultimately serves only to underscore and assist the GOP's theme that Americans as a group are terrified of housing former Guantanamo inmates in their communities.
The article itself is the best evidence that this is an artificial meme constructed out of whole cloth. There is nothing within it whatsoever on the substantive issue of whether the relocation of Guantanamo inmates would in fact pose any legitimate threat--instead, the controversy itself is seen as driving the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
The conflagration has been fanned by the determined focus of Republican leaders, fed by the alarms of talk-show populists and aided by the miscalculation of a new president who set a date for a closing without announcing a detailed plan for the inmates.
(emphasis mine)
It's not an issue, it's not a debate. It's a "conflagration". A "large disastrous fire," as Webster's online dictionary tells us. A "conflict" or "war." http://www.merriam-webster.com/...
The Times' hyperbole aside, to say "the conflagration has been fanned," misstates the reality. The "conflagration" is and was a media assist to a GOP-inspired fiction from the get-go. By accepting, implicitly, that there was ever a controversy here to begin with, the New York Times simply reinforces the talking point:
Talk radio and cable news hosts warned viewers that dangerous terrorists might end up in a neighborhood jail, with Sean Hannity of Fox News even broadcasting an online video from House Republican leaders that juxtaposed the security of the detainee camps with images of the twin towers in flames. And from California and Virginia to the small town of Hardin, Mont., Democratic lawmakers began fending off questions about whether they would admit terrorism suspects into their own communities.
Note the cause and effect here. First the right-wing talking points emerge, the minions are dispatched, Limbaugh and Hannity speak, the Congress reacts. Thus the"conflagration" is created. It did not emerge from any impulse of the population--it was generated entirely by the right-wing noise machine with the implicit collusion of the media.
The Times attempts to salvage its complicity by alluding to the calculated character of what it has helpfully deemed a "conflagration". Rush Limbaugh, John Yoo, and Sean Hannity are all quoted in multiple paragraphs as examples of the GOP media effort. There is no counterpoint provided from any Democratic voices on the substantive issue, except for Stan Greenberg who is quoted (at the end) chiefly to comment on the controversy, and Richard Durbin, who is quoted (at the end) to the effect that Republicans have no alternative plan to the proposed closure. The reaction of the Obama Administration is saved for the very last paragraph which most will never reach. Nor is there any explanation why supposedly legitimate media outlets such as the New York Times seemingly have ceded their role in providing substantive analysis on this issue to the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
The most insidious aspect of the article, however, is this:
Armed with polling data that show a narrow majority of support for keeping the prison open and deep fear about the detainees, Republicans in Congress started laying plans even before the inauguration to make the debate over Guantánamo Bay a question of local community safety instead of one about national character and principles.
The Republicans are "armed with polling data," showing "support for keeping the prison open" and "deep fear" about the detainees. This polling data inspired their effort "before the Inauguration."
No, not exactly. You can scour the article yourself for this "polling data." You won't find it. Nonetheless, the article repeats the same unsubstantiated charge a few paragraphs down:
With public opinion moving against them and still no detailed plan from the president, House Democrats were the first to block the $80 million the White House had requested to close the prison. Senate Democrats initially tried to preserve the money but then bowed to Republican pressure
"With public opinion moving against them..." Except there is no source for this "public opinion." Instead, there is an article in the New York Times that acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy by conflating a concerted effort to manipulate the media as "public opinion."
Here is polling data from January ("before the Inauguration"):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there. But 42 percent of those polled, including 69 percent of Republicans, said terrorism suspects should remain at the prison. Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.
Here is polling data from last week.
http://www.foxnews.com/...
Just over half of Americans (55 percent) oppose transferring detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility to prison facilities in the United States.
Even so, they are divided on whether bringing the detainees to the United States will put the country at risk. While some 43 percent think transferring the detainees to U.S. prison facilities would make the country less safe, about the same number -- 45 percent -- think it would not make much of a difference.
That kind of switch is hardly surprising given the multiplier effects of right-wing demagoguery and tacit media collusion bombarding the public with irrational fear scenarios. But no one should mistake that for an actual representation of "public opinion." The polling "shift" has occurred entirely because media outlets like the New York Times have given credence to the organs of the GOP propaganda machine and have ignored the facts. That's journalism at its laziest. The cause of the "shift" is obvious--instead of investigating the factual arguments about whether it's "safe" or not to re-locate Guantanamo prisoners, we have front-page Sunday-edition reporting on the "controversy."
The GOP have created the controversy. And the media are only too willing to oblige.