NEW YORK TIMES OR MINISTRY OF TRUTH? -- Say Bye-bye, Howell Raines!

ICONOCLAST ^ | Yale Kramer

[Apolitical]

ICONOCLAST DAILY NOTEBOOK....

NEW YORK TIMES OR MINISTRY OF TRUTH?
-- Say Bye-bye, Howell Raines! ...



May 31, 2003: Yesterday's New York Times had a piece buried on its back pages which tells us that Rick Bragg, one of Howell Raines' hottest correspondents, Pulitzer Prize winner, and teacher's pet, has resigned because it was revealed last week that he submitted stories written by (or largely researched by) others, and represented them as his work alone. He was suspended with pay last week, pending an investigation; and when the Washington Post interviewed him, he told them that dang blast it everybody does it, what I done. Besides, boo hoo, I have diabetes.

Whereupon the whole Times National Desk, and dozens of outraged correspondents, rose up in arms and shot off outraged e-mails to each other -- especially crabby old Peter Kilborn who says Times reporters are noble and pure and good and true and hardworking and Rick Bragg is the only rotten apple in the barrel.

As you would expect, what the Times printed yesterday was the children's version of the story and of Peter Kilborn's e-mail. If you want the x-rated version, click on the Newsweek Web exclusive by Seth Mnookin.

It is not hard to see -- reading the lines and what's between them -- that the reason for the outrage is not that Bragg degraded the Times standards, but that his shady practices were tolerated and rewarded -- just as with Jayson Blair -- by the big boss Howell Raines. Prejudice and favoritism in the newsroom:

Kilborn's e-mail also touched on a number of other long-simmering complaints about the culture at the Times. Within minutes of being sent to about 20 other national correspondents and two editors, replies started to come in. Tim Egan wrote, "Glad to hear you say what I have been feeling". The problem is we've had a two-tier system that has allowed Bragg to carve out one system for him, (cutting corners, using a huge stringer network, telling people he can't be edited) and another for everyone else". What will come of this infighting, cannibalism, and soul-searching? Hopefully, we'll go back to valuing what we have: people who care about the drift of this country, and are given the time and respect to tell it right."

Come again? What was that you said, Tim Egan? "Hopefully, we'll go back to valuing what we have: people who care about the drift of this country, and who are given the time and respect to tell it right."

Sometimes in moments of high passion, bits of the unvarnished truth slip out.

"The drift of this country"? What can he possibly mean by that?

Is there any doubt that what he means is the drift towards conservatism. In otherwords, the people of this country have been rethinking their views about a number of things and now have values which are different from the values of the New York Times -- a definite no-no. And we Times reporters must all work together and "tell it right," which naturally means tell it left.

Simply put, what Tim Egan means is that it is his mission to change the minds of the people not by telling the straight facts and letting the people decide what the facts mean, but by "telling it right." And since the Times, or rather Howell Raines and Pinch Sulzberger alone, knows what is correct, the facts have to be screened, selected, polished, spun, and nuanced in order to print -- "all the news that fits, we print."

How do they do that without lying or grossly distorting? It's called nuanced reporting and editing...

[Apolitical]

What the NY Times is really about.

[Iowa Granny]

Canabalizim has become a spectator sport.

[Dog Gone]

If that isn't an admission of liberal bias, nothing is.

[Grand Old Partisan]

BTW, the first publisher of The New York Times was a Chairman of the Republican National Committee, but he was kicked out for backing Democrat President Andrew Johnson.

[Consort]

[OldFriend]

Adam Clymer has joined the fray. His solution. Sweep it all under the rug!!! LOL

[george wythe]

Liberals are fuming with the NY Times in general and Raines in particular.

From PBS “Newshour”:

MARVIN KALB[ senior fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. ]: I have the feeling that The New York Times right now is like part of a government caught with its hand in the cookie jar. The New York Times in a sense has done something wrong, it is very large, it is very important to the nation, to the world, as a matter of fact.

And it is trying to come back, and the way it's coming back, it seems to me, doesn't measure up to what The Times ought to be; there are no firings, nobody resigns. It's like the government in that sense.



TERENCE SMITH [PBS]: John Temple, when it comes to anonymous sources, you've introduced some changes at your newspaper on that. Tell us about that.

JOHN TEMPLE [ editor and publisher of The Rocky Mountain News]: Yes, I have. I was concerned after the appearance of the four-page spread in The Times explaining the Jayson Blair case, and I called The Times -- as The Rocky Mountain News subscribes to The New York Times news service, and has the right to print any of the material in The New York Times -- and I wanted a clarification on The Times' policy on anonymous sources.
And ultimately the policy as it was conveyed to me was there is no formal policy. And I found that to be of tremendous concern, because I had done the same thing with the Associated Press that day.

And so effective that day, on Monday, we introduced a policy that any New York Times story using anonymous sources must be approved by the managing editor or the editor, and that is the same policy we have for our own stories. So in other words, we're putting The Times' stories through our own filter, the exact same filter, and asking ourselves whether we should run this story, and in fact we have rejected already one page-one story that The Times offered and did run on their page one.

TERENCE SMITH: So as a subscriber to that service, John Temple, I gather, you're taking a more skeptical or questioning look at The New York Times product that is coming in to your office?

JOHN TEMPLE: That's correct, because I asked The Times news service -- I said it would be my request that you acknowledge in the copy that you have verified the sources and that the editors at the paper know who the sources are and have decided, thus have decided it's worth publishing. But that's not The Times' approach, and my worry is that if The Times isn't going to do that, then I have evaluate it on a case by case basis.
And when you get an entire story based on anonymous sources that's inflammatory, for example, a story saying that U.S. officials are saying they're going to shoot looters on sight, where they have quotes that there's no attribution in the entire story, I felt uncomfortable with that story and I did not feel it was necessary to run it without knowing more, and I waited and did not run that story.

TERENCE SMITH: And that story was later clarified?

JOHN TEMPLE: That story, well, I don't really know what it was.

The Associated Press moved a story the following day, essentially refuting the story where... quoting officials by name saying that story was not correct. At least that's my understanding. I think we would have known it was correct if people had been shot. I mean, you would think that if we have a new policy that we're going to shoot looters to send a message, we would have seen that, and we have not.

[DPB101]

Amazing what occurred, isn't it? The Times once was a crusading Christian newspaper--one which fought abortion and exposed corruption in city politics. When Congress passed an income tax in 1894, the New York Times called it "a vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic and Socialistic scheme . . . the most unreasoning and most un-American movement in the politics of the last quarter century." When SCOTUS knocked down the law the next year, the Times predicted "neither the Democratic nor the Republican party will ever attempt to revive the corpse that the Supreme Court buried yesterday." When, in 1909, congress sent a constitutional amendment allowing an income tax to the states, the New York Times declared, "When men get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others they are not easily cured of it."

Even as late as 1917, the New York Times was serious about exposing subversives:

"Anarchists Awed By Police Clubs"
New York Times, June 5, 1917

"Meeting of Reds Traps Slackers"
New York Times, June 12, 1917

"Emma Goldman and A. Berkman Behind the Bars"
New York Times, June 16, 1917

Wasn't too long, though, before the New York Times was covering up for communists:

"Russians Hungry, but not Starving. Kremlin's 'Doom' Denied"
New York Times, March 31st 1933

Do you have more information on the publisher being forced out for supporting a Democrat? First I have heard of that.

[Crawdad]

My Dad treks off every Sunday morning with $5.00 worth of quarters to pick my Mom up a Sunday Times in Montgomery, AL so she can do the crossword. Apparently that's all she uses the paper for, because when I ask her about articles I hear about on FR (I don't buy the paper), she doesn't know what I'm talking about.
Also, I think it's hilarious that a couple of Alabamians (Raines and Bragg), are wrecking what was once a great newspaper. Could they be condidered "outside agitators"?

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks!

While The New York Times has indeed sunk low, I have no problem with a newspaper being leftist. It is the notion that the media is somehow supposed to be "fair" -- whatever that is -- that bothers me. Where is it carved into marble that the media is supposed to be "fair" and neutral? The very first major newspapers in this country were founded by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson to advance their policies. And yes, early on, The New York Times was published by a man who at the same time was Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

[aristeides]

Andrew Johnson may previously have been a Democrat, but I believe he was elected in 1864 on a Unionist ticket. The same ticket Abraham Lincoln was on.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Henry J. Raymond, owner and publisher of The New York Times, was the second Chairman of the Republican National Committe. See http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/templates/display.search.cfm?ID=52 for more information. He was forced out and replaced by the first Chairman, Edwin Morgan, in 1866, the only time the GOP held a national convention between presidential years, for supporting Democrat President Andrew Jackson. For more information you can also read Back to Basics for the Republican Party -- see http://www.republicanbasics.com

[aristeides]

Anybody know what that front-page NYT story was that the Rocky Mountain News rejected for being based on anonymous sources?

[Rome2000]

Whats a newspaper?

How many hits does their website get versus Freerepublic.com?

Newspapers are bad for the environment and a waste of trees.

[Grand Old Partisan]

True, but Andrew Johnson was always a Democrat. While in the White House, he sought the 1868 Democrat presidential nomination and was later elected to the Senate as a Democrat.

Johnson's allying himself so quickly with the Confederate-Democrats of the South after the Civil War was a great tragedy for our nation.

[Grand Old Partisan]

OOPS -- I meant Democrat President Andrew Johnson (!!). By the way, Andrew Jackson Johnson was named after the first Democrat President.

[Enduring Freedom]

New York Times declared, "When men get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others they are not easily cured of it."

Wow.

Now that is my idea of a newspaper.

[OldFriend]

The problems became very serious when Raines took the helm. Rather than report the news, they decided to interpret the news for us. The front page became a vehicle for promoting liberal views. Putting the worst possible spin on anything republican. IMHO, they even resorted to reporting outright lies then quietly issuing a small correction days later after the damage had been done.

Of course, now they are paying the price for such perfidy.

[Consort]

All the new that's fit to print....(>>> anagram >>>)....That's it, then all profits went.

[alrea]

New York Times declared, "When men get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others they are not easily cured of it."

it is amazing how most political arguements come down to this one question of whether or not one takes the property of others. liberalism IS new angles for talking the property of others.

whether in a newsroom, a back room, a court room, a board room or a bathroom, the liberals are getting more control of you and your property.

[CyberAnt]

Actually, the outrage over Rick' revalation said to me that Rick had exposed an overused system within the NYT.

[Paul_B]

Sounds like the episode where the Times reported on its front page that Coalition troops would shoot Iraqi looters on sight - an allegation which, despite its anonymous sources, was quickly debunked.

[Mister Baredog]

PINCH, what were his parents thinking????

PLEASE, can the LA Slimes be next, PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE!!!!

[Mister Baredog]

While The New York Times has indeed sunk low, I have no problem with a newspaper being leftist.

I don't have a problem with that either, BUT I have a BIG problem with their DENIAL of that fact. THEY don't think they are slanted in any way, THAT'S the problem with liberals. Conservatives don't mind identifying themselves, liberals call themselves things like "mainstream", "correct", the "only" way, for "thinking" people like them, gag me.

[Grand Old Partisan]

That's a good point. I do point out in my book that the notion that the media was supposed to be neutral dates from the 1960s, when the media shifted hard left, and was specifically concocted to cover for that ideological shift.

[george wythe]

The Rocky Mountain News rejected the following frontpage story from the New York Times for being based on anonymous sources; it was published on Wednesday, May 14, 2003, by the NY Times:

Rules to give U.S. forces power to shoot looters :

By PATRICK E. TYLER
The New York Times

[excerpt]
"He made it very clear that he is now in charge," said an official who was at the meeting. "And I think you are going to see a change in the rules of engagement within a few days to get the situation under control."

Asked what this meant, the official replied, "They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around."

---

The next day, the New York Times published the denial offered by the US military hidden at the bottom of this article:

U.S. military pledges more troops for policing
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS with THOM SHANKER
The New York Times

[excerpt]
Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount III, in charge of the 3rd Infantry Division, emphasized that U.S. soldiers had not been given free reign to shoot looters simply on that basis alone.

"Unless the soldier's life is threatened, we are not going out and shooting looters," Blount said Wednesday.

[demkicker]

Adam Clymer has joined the fray. His solution. Sweep it all under the rug!!!

You forgot to mention that the Clymer is retiring. Me thinks he's feeling the heat of the spotlight on bad reporters at the NYTimes and thinks he might be next to get the ax. Lord knows, he's one of the worst. Link

[OldFriend]

Pinch's daddy was called Punch! I kid you not!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

True. And that's Why Broadcast Journalism Is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You know what they say about the coverup always being more egregious than the crime . . .

[okie01]

"IMHO, they even resorted to reporting outright lies then quietly issuing a small correction days later after the damage had been done."

It's not just your opinion, it's a matter of fact.

Two incidents immediately come to mind:

1. The Times headlined Henry Kissinger's opposition to a war in Iraq. One could even read the body copy and realize he had done no such thing, quite the opposite. It wasn't misquoting, it was lying.

2. The Times ran a news story claiming that the Czech Premier, Vaclav Havel, had called President Bush and advised him that there was no evidence that Mohammed Atta had met the Iraqi, al-Ani, in Prague. He had done no such thing and his government insisted that the Times run a retraction of this "lie". Alas, the "right wing domestic terrorist" theory received a mortal wound...

In other words, the Times' vaunted "nuanced reporting and editing" often goes abroad into falsehood. Even without Jayson Blair's help...

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I think we should petition the government for "Truth in Labeling." If the papers want to write fiction, then they should not be allowed to deceive the unhip.

[WOSG]

quoting officials by name saying that story was not correct. At least that's my understanding. I think we would have known it was correct if people had been shot.

wow! he is really smartening Up! LOL!

Seriously, there is one way NOT to learn waht the Bush amdinistration is up to: Read an unsourced NYT article purporting to give an inside scoop that is biased misleading and 9 times out of 10 not the truth.

The better way is quite simple: WATCH WAHT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOES. It is not fancy. Unlike Clinton admin, the Bush admin is very much 'what you see is what you get', and hearing the Ari press conferences is usually all you need to know. Everything not said publicly is gossip and rumor and most likely false by the time it gets to us.

[WOSG]

It's the hypocrisy that stinks so much.

The NYT is highly partisan, but wrings their hands over the less partisan fox news as an example of the degradation of the media into partisan (read 'conservative') points of view.

What self-centered snobbish narcissists they are, to not see that the universe does NOT revolve around their world-view!!

I would have much less annoyance with the NYT if their masthead read: "The Voice of the Liberal Elite!"

[OldFriend]

The interesting point is that I wrote my letter nearly two years ago. Nice to see the NYT finally getting what they deserve.

[Malsua]

I posted a couple of days ago about my experience with them.

I.E. a tech article that I got no mention in the times. LOL. Now these things come home to roost.

Shall I salute while the Old Grey lady sinks into the harbour or just laugh? ROFL

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of elitists.

[Timesink]

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

Trust me.

[GOPJ]

LOL:

Canabalizim has become a spectator sport.

[george wythe]

Everything not said publicly is gossip and rumor and most likely false by the time it gets to us.

From now on, I will take anything leaked by "anonymous sources" with a big grain of salt, especially if referring to the Bush administration.

I remember that leading up to the Iraqi war, we had so many conflicting and wild stories that my head was spinning trying to make sense out them.

[Enduring Freedom]

True enough.

By including a middle man (the government), the Socialists can indirectly steal your money, and not have blood on their hands.

Quite the scam, huh?

[timydnuc]

I think about the NYT reporters and executives with their parties and their white shirts and Sacks suit sitting at their computers writing up analysis to the war in Iraq. They type out words to make a sentence, then a paragraph, then a column. The worst thing they got was a back ache from sitting too long. Then I think about one of my brothers, one of my 101 Ranger brothers, picking his tired and weary ass up off the ground, after an attack, to march on though a dangerous and perilous night, fighting all the way, to fulfill the principles of the freedom he defends. He and his commerades just pulled off the greatest and fastest military victory in the history of man. And they did it with sheer, raw guts and courage.

Then there is that "reporter" at the NYT that writes his prose to degrade that man that fights. The man that fights for his right to do it. There is a God and He will pick and choose.