First, all hail to Kos and his Kossaks. You can read Safire's senile regurgitation of Roves' latest message, and immediately click onto Kos to find his sources and logic shredded.
Anyway, did NY Times sucker or appease DailyKos this morning?
Yes, I'm talking about the White Elephant in the room: Clark laying into the Bush Administration for their pre and post 9/11 behavior.
Follow my line of reasoning:
- NY Times buries the news in a short critical article by Judith - Weapons of Mass Deception - Miller, "Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11" on page 19.
- At 6:57 this morning the NY Times online published "The Debate Grows over Bush's Handling of Terror Threat" by Carl Hulse. This article is far more critical of the White House.
Question: Why did NY Times wait until 6:57 a.m. to publish the Hulse article? Did Hulse finish the article at 5:00 a.m., have his editor look it over at 6:00 a.m. and then they rushed to publish it? Or did Hulse have to wait until the middle of the night to talk to his final source?
I have a more obvious suggestion: the NY Times tried to please everyone. Instead of giving the news its front-page space on the print edition they buried it so it would not create a stir on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, or in Greenwich, Connecticut, or in Long Island.
But the NY Times knew that Daily Kos, Artois, Dean's rapid responders would bury them with angry emails if we clicked online and found the Clark's allegations buried.
This is the first time I have seen NY Times produce two versions of an article, one to fit its print demographic and one to fit its online demographic.
Cheers: Kos, Artois, and Dean for making the NY Times pay attention to the online community.
Jeers: NY Times. No Cojones man. Now everyone online believes that Bush & Co are hacks, and everyone who read the newspaper believes Clark is crazy.