Rekindling Its Iraq WMD Fiasco The New York Times Is Back At Printing 'Officials Said'
At first I wondered why the New York Times homepage editor would put a piece about Putin and his alleged involvement in war strategy under 'U.S. Politics'.
But after reading
As Russian Losses Mount in Ukraine, Putin Gets More Involved in War Strategy
I understand the qualification.
Some quotes:
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has [...], American officials said, ...
American officials briefed on highly sensitive intelligence said ...
... his involvement has created tensions, American officials said.
The officials said ...
..., Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview on Friday.
... is to both sides, American officials said.
Some American officials said they saw trouble ahead ...
A senior U.S. official said this week ...
...could eventually be threatened, American officials said.
Senior Russian officers repeatedly questioned [...], American officials said, ...
The Russian officers believed [...], American officials said.
... focused on massive artillery barrages, American officials said.
... hit by Ukrainian fire, Ukrainian officials said.
... said Seth G. Jones, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
... said Michael Kofman, director of Russia studies at CNA, a defense research institute in Arlington, Va.
..., U.S. officials say Mr. Putin believes ...
... American officials have said that Mr. Putin has not been given accurate information ...
Mr. Putin, an American official said, has opposed ...
..., American officials said Russian officers themselves are divided ...
Adding up we have:
anonymous American/U.S. official/s [said/have said/say]: 15 times,
named American semi-officials (Jones, Kofman): 2 times,
a named American official (Milley): 1 time,
anonymous Ukrainian officials: 1 time.
There are no other sources in the piece.
Would you believe that it took 4 (FOUR) NYT 'reporters', Julian E. Barnes, Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Michael Schwirtz, to stenograph that nonsense?
A lot of anonymous American officials said that the U.S. was winning its wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. Anonymous American officials said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The NYT printed all those false claims without providing evidence for their veracity.
There was some agonizing after the Iraq WMD claims turned out to be false. The NYT and other media promised to do better and to restrict the use of anonymous sources:
Under our guidelines, anonymous sources should be used only for information that we think is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way.
... We understand readers’ wariness, but many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be reported if we banned anonymous sourcing. Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety. Those anonymous American officials quoted in the above NYT piece are distributing 'newsworthy' and 'credible' information? Even some they very obviously have no way to obtain ('Mr. Putin believes ...')? They must be fearing for their jobs and safety when they reveal the secrets of Putin's believes to those assiduous NYT 'reporters'?
Or its all just another bunch of lies. Not only what the American officials say but also what the NYT claims to be. The above piece is not the result of journalism by independent media but the outcome of intense collaboration between a quasi state organ and the Biden administration. It is an information operation waged against its own people and propaganda for a real war waged against Russia.
Why do they expect anyone to pay for this dreck?
Kazan is the name of a city in RuZZia.
Is that where you live?
Dirty Filthy RuZZian Nazi.
Yeah, I think Russian recruits will be in training October and deployed Nov. Who knows how this war will end, but one thing is for certain, hundreds of thousands have died for a meaningless war.
“Why do they expect anyone to pay for this dreck?”
I’m through debating the Neocons regarding who’s going to win this war (assuming that the Neocons don’t go nuclear).
Sure, this propaganda will get help them and their friends more money, which like prior wars since WW2, seems to be their goal.
In any case, the Neocons will have to be taught another lesson...since they never seem to learn from previous lessons (such as Syria and Egypt).
One thing i have noticed about about western-state-corporate media propaganda on this war (and which is further simplified and amplified by certain FR posters) they are all very reactionary and reductionist - their comments and propaganda are only in reaction to events and then in the most simple of ways.
Russia starts SCO and invades Ukraine - Ha! But they didn’t take Snake Island!
Russia asserts air dominance over Ukraine - But the ghost of Kiev is out there kicking ass!
Russia advances to Kiev and then withdraws - HA! Russia couldn’t take Kiev!
Russia calls up 300K reservists - Yes, but they are all fat and have no weapons!
I feel like we are back in primary school.
And most if not all of what YOU post carries...”And Russian officials said,” or “According to our (unnamed and unidentified) source in the Kremlin,” etc.
The Biden administration is the best friend you ever had lol.
It’s provided by nato and uke propagandists
And it’s Onslaught I’ll give em that
It’s a battle to control the disease of the public mind
And it works
Look at this forum
Maybe ten percent are Z bot loyalists uninterested in comprehensive info instead happy as a virgin fat kid in a whorehouse on a slow day with the propaganda