<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, September 05, 2007


 

New York Times vs. New York Times


The New York Times editorializes today for some vague, unspecified withdrawal ("Congress needs to insist on a prudent formula that will withdraw American forces and limit the hemorrhaging."), which is a good thing (or would be, if that "prudent formula" actually involved cutting funds, and not some timetable with enough caveats to be ignorable by Bush), but seems to have problems with its own news coverage.

Today, in an editorial: "Mr. Bush pumped up his headlines by suggesting continued gains in security could allow for a reduction in troops."

Yesterday's news article headline: "Bush, in Iraq, Says Troop Reduction Is Possible"

Today's editorial: "But this is a cruel tease and a pathetic attempt to repackage old promises. Mr. Bush has been dangling that same as-soon-as-possible drawdown for years. The Pentagon had a plan to do just that in 2004."

Yesterday's news article: not a word noting the same thing, which is fact, not opinion.

Today's editorial: "Bush’s eight-hour stopover in Iraq on Sunday won him major play in the news media, including photos of smiling American military forces with their commander in chief."

Photo accompanying yesterday's news article (at least online):


Today's editorial: "We suppose Mr. Bush could claim one success for his visit: he did manage to get Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to visit the Sunni-dominated province."

Left I on the News: No, Times editorial writers, Bush's "success" was in getting ruling class mouthpieces like your paper to print and broadcast exactly what he wanted them to, up to and including the picture of him with smiling American military forces, today's editorial notwithstanding.


Why stop here? There's more...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media