Posted on 11/18/2004 3:59:39 PM PST by gab1279
By now, you know the broadcast media stories involving Dan Rather and broadcast peers at CBS, but nowhere is media bias more pronounced at the newspaper of record, "The New York Times."
Notice how, unlike most of those claiming the existence of media bias, I do not put the Times' description in quotation marks. That's because the Times is America's paper of record, and what they write impacts the world.
Maybe that's why news observers like myself are concerned when liberal bias escapes the Times' editorial page and makes it to the front page in the form of a headline or story. Take yesterday's above-the-fold story on the CIA.
A casual reading of the headline would suggest that new CIA chief Porter Goss demanded blind loyalty of his employees toward President Bush.
The concept was troubling. As a congressman who was appointed to the Armed Services Committee for four terms, I can assure you that America needs an independent Central Intelligence Agency to check the worst instincts of presidents, congressmen and senators. The fact my friend and former colleague Porter Goss would place a loyalty oath on the entire CIA troubled me.
Then I read the story.
The news item never lived up to its headline. Goss had simply not issued decrees denouncing dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Rush Limbaugh blasts the NYT good about this story too:
Oh, there's this big controversy. Porter Goss sends out this memo that he expects the agency to administer the policies of the Bush administration. That's not what the memo said! That's what the New York Times says the memo says. That's another blatant error today. Porter Goss' memo does not say, "We are here to implement the president's policies." What the memo says is, "We are not here to implement the policies of the president's opposition. We are here to get the facts and to present the facts to the administration and let them decide what to do," pure and simple.
FR post w/ clip of memo: More Backstabbing: CIA Leaks Goss Memo
The liberals are trying to paint Goss as a right-wing puppet, very unfair treatment.
Being in the military, I hate the media as much as anyone else. But, what is the issue with the headline?
"New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies"
Ok. What the heck is he supposed to tell his workers? To fight the administration? How is this bias?
The MSM, and mainly the NY Slimes, are just trash. Crooked, lying mouthpieces for the liberal Dem party.
Long Live PRAVDA!!!!
Because that is not what Goss' memo said. All he said was to stop leaking against the Administration. He didn't tell them to 'Back Administration Policies' he told to STFU and do their job.
Well, I've lost a lot of faith in Joe since he insists on having the book RFK prominently displayed over his "right" shoulder when he broadcasts from home.
Too many fags at the NYTimes. Can get a "straight" story even if you paid for it!!
Can someone tell me why the WSJ charges for it's internet online paper??
What gives?
So the joke in Russia was that there is no truth in The News, and no news in The Truth.
Unfortunately, in the New York Times, you can find neither truth nor news --
since yesterday's news never fits till tomorrow, as the local joke goes.
Not to worry Joe. We call the paper the New York Slimes for good reason!
If I'm not mistaken, Daniel Okrent, the Times' Public Editor, has specifically disclaimed and shunned the 'paper of record' moniker, arguing that a paper of record has to publish all sorts of dry facts and details that the Times is no longer interested in publishing.
On a figurative level, though, the description is probably close enough to the truth...
It depends on what is meant by "back." If it means "support by providing the best intelligence you can produce" that is a worthy objective. If it means "bend the intelligence to support whatever the White House policy is," that, I think you will agree, is not good for the country.
Intelligence should be information, not propaganda.
NYT isn't anything of record anymore. It goes on record, but the multiple news source idea and bloggers have cut its importance, making it a source that goes on record, but isn't "the newspaper of record" for the nation. Otherwise, its circulation wouldn't be dropping so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.