Junk journalism has always been with us, and always will be. So in attempting to discredit the MSM, there is no point in exposing the shortcomings of such dregs of journalism as The National Enquirer, The Washington Times, or The New York Post.
Nor is there any need to do so. The decline of American journalism can be better demonstrated if we can find it in the most prestigious and esteemed publications, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. And, sadly, it appears that we can.
At The Washington Post, Bob Woodward, the scourge of the Nixon administration and an essential instrument to Nixon's downfall, has become a stenographer and apologist for the Busheviks. And efforts at investigation and reform by John Conyers are met with scorn and derision by the likes of "reporter" Dana Milbank.
But I choose, instead, to direct my attention to The New York Times: the "flagship" of American journalism and the so-called "newspaper of historical record" which proudly proclaims every day on its masthead: "All the News that's Fit to Print." If The New York Times, presumably the best of American journalism, has been corrupted, then whom or what can we trust?
So what have we to learn from The New York Times? In the last decade, we have learned:
And this is what the New York Times has not told us ? presumably not "fit to print."
"All the news that's fit to print?" I think not.
How the mighty have fallen! With a record like this, why should anyone pay any attention to what The New York Times might be reporting?
Decades ago, when I lived in Manhattan and taught at the City University of New York, one of the highlights of the week was when I brought a newly-minted Sunday New York Times to my flat, and spread it out on my bed, reading voraciously.
No more! Today, I won't pay the annual $50 for access online to the NYT columnists. "It will only encourage them." Despite the worthy contributions of such "exceptions" as Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, "the best of American journalism" is simply not good enough.
So we must turn to the remaining independent media, the foreign press, and the internet for our news.
We, the progressive public, do not own The New York Times, nor do we have a voice on its editorial board. Still, we do have leverage ? simply by ignoring them. Like all modern newspapers, the New York Times relies more on advertising than on subscriptions and sales for its revenue. But advertising rates are a function of circulation. If the public gives The New York Times (and The Washington Post, etc.), the attention and credence they authentically deserve (i.e., very little), their bottom lines will suffer. Then, at long last, a reform of American journalism may soon be at hand.
A Plea to the (formerly) responsible media: "Just the fact, please."
We don't need a mirror-image liberal-bias to "balance" the rightward slant of the MSM. "Just the facts," will do just fine. For, as Steven Colbert so aptly put it, "reality has a liberal bias."
Nor is there any need to do so. The decline of American journalism can be better demonstrated if we can find it in the most prestigious and esteemed publications, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. And, sadly, it appears that we can.
At The Washington Post, Bob Woodward, the scourge of the Nixon administration and an essential instrument to Nixon's downfall, has become a stenographer and apologist for the Busheviks. And efforts at investigation and reform by John Conyers are met with scorn and derision by the likes of "reporter" Dana Milbank.
But I choose, instead, to direct my attention to The New York Times: the "flagship" of American journalism and the so-called "newspaper of historical record" which proudly proclaims every day on its masthead: "All the News that's Fit to Print." If The New York Times, presumably the best of American journalism, has been corrupted, then whom or what can we trust?
* There is good reason to suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in an illegal land deal: "Whitewater." (They have since been totally exonerated).
* A Chinese-American nuclear scientist, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, may have sent classified secrets to China. (Also exonerated).
* A newspaper consortium analysis of the 2000 Florida vote "proved" that Bush would have won the state and the election despite the Supreme Court ruling, "Bush v. Gore." (The text of that November 12, 2001 article refuted the headline assertion).
* As reported by now-discredited Times reporter Judith Miller, Saddam Hussein imported aluminum tubing that could only be used to refine uranium for nuclear bombs. Miller also "informed" us that, according to "reliable sources" (i.e., the convicted embezzler, Ahmed Chalabi), Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were subsequently proven to be false.
And this is what the New York Times has not told us ? presumably not "fit to print."
* That the GOP slanders against Al Gore (e.g., that he claimed to have invented the internet and to have "discovered" the toxic site, Love Canal) were all groundless.
* That the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" conducted a baseless smear against John Kerry, and conversely, that Kerry's military record and his medals were authentic.
* That George Bush was absent without leave from his military obligation with the Texas Air National Guard.
* That Bush likely violated securities law as an executive and investor with Harken energy.
* That there is compelling evidence that the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections were stolen by the Republicans through election fraud.
* That the Bush Administration violated the FISA laws on wiretapping of US civilians. (The Times did report this eventually, but "held" the story past the 2004 election, which might have been affected by the disclosure).
"All the news that's fit to print?" I think not.
How the mighty have fallen! With a record like this, why should anyone pay any attention to what The New York Times might be reporting?
Decades ago, when I lived in Manhattan and taught at the City University of New York, one of the highlights of the week was when I brought a newly-minted Sunday New York Times to my flat, and spread it out on my bed, reading voraciously.
No more! Today, I won't pay the annual $50 for access online to the NYT columnists. "It will only encourage them." Despite the worthy contributions of such "exceptions" as Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, "the best of American journalism" is simply not good enough.
So we must turn to the remaining independent media, the foreign press, and the internet for our news.
We, the progressive public, do not own The New York Times, nor do we have a voice on its editorial board. Still, we do have leverage ? simply by ignoring them. Like all modern newspapers, the New York Times relies more on advertising than on subscriptions and sales for its revenue. But advertising rates are a function of circulation. If the public gives The New York Times (and The Washington Post, etc.), the attention and credence they authentically deserve (i.e., very little), their bottom lines will suffer. Then, at long last, a reform of American journalism may soon be at hand.
A Plea to the (formerly) responsible media: "Just the fact, please."
We don't need a mirror-image liberal-bias to "balance" the rightward slant of the MSM. "Just the facts," will do just fine. For, as Steven Colbert so aptly put it, "reality has a liberal bias."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
