Howler: Today's NY Times and WP on Ashcroft are a study in contrasts

[BurtWorm]

Citing Michael Massing's damning critique of the NY Times' Iraq coverage in the latest NY Review of Books, the Daily Howler notes:

MASSING ON WAR: Yesterday afternoon, our entire staff cooled their heels on a jury duty-related assignment. As we sat, we used our time well; we read Michael Massing’s latest critique of the New York Times’ coverage of Iraq. “The Times does show flashes of independent reporting,” he says. But in general—well, let Massing tell it:

MASSING: In general, however, the Times has seemed cautious and complacent. With few exceptions, its editors have purged the front page of any signs of blood or death; reports of US casualties are usually relegated to inside pages, and photos seem selected more for their visual appeal than for what they might reveal about the terrible realities of war.

“The leisureliness of the Times’s coverage is especially apparent when compared to that of its top competitor,” Massing writes. And yes, he means the Washington Post. “When it comes to Iraq,” the scribe judges, “the rivalry between the Times and the Post has become ‘A Tale of Two Papers,’ the one late and lethargic, the other astute and aggressive.”

For what it’s worth, this morning’s editions of the Post and the Times make Massing look like a genius.


Contrast the articles for yourself:

Washington Post: A1, above the fold, cites the Democrats' angry point about Ashcroft's apparent contempt of Congress, actually using the phrase, "contempt of Congress!"

New York Times: Buries the story on A10, makes no reference to the charge of contempt of Congress.

[tom_paine]

1. Apparently the NY Times is more thoroughjly infiltrated and parasitized

by Bushevik Moles, Mockingbirds, and Loyalist Editors with Orders to Prudenize.

I would have guessed the Post was more deeply infiltrated and parasitized than the Times.

This suggests the opposite is true.

[Cocoa]

2. the contempt of congress should be in the headline

how often do senators suggest the Attorney General is in contempt of congress?

At least the Post mentions it, buried as it is. No excuse for the NYT not even to mention it.

[BurtWorm]

4. It should have been the headline in both papers.

There's absolutely NO FUCKING EXCUSE for the Times to be treating the story as it is. It seems to be their usual reaction--to downplay stories they got SCOOPED on!

[Stephanie]

7. How can the Times be scooped on this when it was on C-Span

and everybody saw it? The Times wasn't scooped by the Post on this story. They simply chose to downplay it.

[BurtWorm]

13. But the WSJ scooped them on the memo story.

The Times is way late out of the starting gate on this.

[AP]

19. The NYT doesn't even want to leave the barn. I think it such a

mischaracterization of what the Times does to represent it as them just not being fast enough.

They know what they're doing. The are making conscious decisions about how to present the news in a way that is very helpful to their corporate comrades.

[BurtWorm]

20. You could be right.

But their behavior is still a puzzle to me.

[AP]

21. This might help put the pieces together.

One of the most revealing tiny pieces of information that I had to put in context for myself was in an article about Enron's future markets.

Remember how Enron would sign those contracts with large corporations to provide energy? They'd enter into the contract and then give the company a 1 million dollars for signing the contract. They'd turn around and report to the SEC that their value had increased because they'd signed the long term contract. Their share price would go up. They'd issue more shares and get the money to pay off the next company for entering into the long term contract. (And insiders like Ken Lay would sell their shares too, because they knew there was only one direction that company was going with a business plan like that one.)

It was a pyramid scheme with the public markets providing the cash. The customers must have known something was up. Whoever GETS money like that to sign a contract?

Well, guess what? Enron was also in the ink futures market. And guess who was on their customer list? The New York Times.

So, the NYT was getting money from Enron that clearly depended on Enron's stock price staying up. And the NYT certainly wasn't reporting accurately on Enron at the time.

I know this is just one tiny example, but I think it proves that the NYT isn't just a news operation. It's a media company that is profit motivated and has conflicting interests that I'm sure are always resolved in a way that protects profits.

[quinnox]

3. Have been impressed by the Post

There have been some surprisingly hard hitting articles critical of Bush campaign of late, there was one where Bush campaign felt threatened enough that they actually responded point by point to the Post article that was about the falsehoods in many of Bush's attack ads.

NY Times has been on a long downhill slide ever since the reporter was exposed who made up stories.

Here is the Bush response I referenced for any interested.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2716

There also was another one I recall in the Post that was about how Bush campaign was stooping low to smear Kerry by a reporter named Dionne.

[BurtWorm]

6. The slide goes back further than that.

Remember Jeff Gerth and Whitewater? Remember the Times on Wen Ho Lee? It's sickening to see what's become of a once great newspaper.

At least their editorials have been relentlessly critical of the Bushists, and at least they have Herbert and Krugman.

[quinnox]

8. I haven't been reading it that long

I'm sure it must have been better than the current incarnation though.

[ClassWarrior]

5. I thought the Howler was going away!

Wow, I'm gonna have to start frequenting the incomparable ol' site again.

[redqueen]

17. I remember when that was posted

and I sent a mournful e-mail letting them know how sorely they'd be missed. I'm sure that was the cause of their re-thinking their plans! ;)

Seriously though I'm SO glad we don't have to do without their insight. It's truly unmatched at the present time.

[KoKo]

9. When I was on vacation last month I purchased the print edition of NYT's

every day. I was shocked at how biased the coverage favoring the Repugs. Articles with important info about the Bush "torturegate" and Iraq were written in such a confused way and the positioning of articles sprinkled throughout the paper which should have been on the front page was obvious.

I read their articles "online" so like most DU'ers who don't get print edition, I'm not aware of where the articles are placed or the tone of the whole paper that one gets from viewing the print edition.

I decided after that week, and then the Judith Miller revelations, that the NYT's isn't doing much to "show the Bushies the door" and bring down their "evil empire."

I've not thought WaPo was much better, though.

[BurtWorm]

11. I think Howell Raines and Bill Keller have fucked the Times up royally

Though now that I think of it, Joseph Lelvyveld and Abe (yeuuchhh!) Rosenthal weren't that hot either.

[KoKo]

22. Maybe we never knew how biased the coverage was until the Bushies

came into power. That was when some of us still "believed" the media.

I can't believe Miller wasn't fired. She has "deep" connections or some files hidden away she can use if she needs them, I guess. :eyes:

[redqueen]

10. I do so love the Daily Howler

:loveya:

But IMO all this juicy info is worthless if not acted on. I really enjoy sending e-mails or making calls letting these people know we're onto them, or otherwise telling them how ridiculously incompetent they seem to be.

[BurtWorm]

12. I just sent a letter to Daniel Okrent demanding an explanation

for Lewis's piece-of-shit reporting:



I'm distressed. I don't understand what is happening with the Times' standards.

I am mystified by Neil Lewis's article which purports to describe an event I witnessed with my own eyes on C-SPAN last night. The article unaccountably leaves out what I *think* is among the most newsworthy points about John Ashcroft's testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday morning: several Senators--Biden, Schumer and Durbin at least--asserting that the Attorney General of the United States may be in contempt of Congress for failing to cite a legal reason for refusing to turn over documents to the committee.

Can you or Lewis, or Lewis's editor, explain to me why this was not worthy of being included in the article? Isn't it highly unusual for an attorney general to be threatened with a contempt of Congress charge? Isn't this extremely serious? Please help explain why this fact was omitted? And why, while we're at it, wasn't this article, with the headline "Senators Say Ashcroft May Be in Contempt of Congress," on page 1 above the fold?

Do I have a better understanding than the nation's newspaper of record of what is news, or is it no longer news when the Attorney General is told in no uncertain terms that he may be in contempt of Congress?

Thank you for your help.

[BurtWorm]

14. At the risk of having my own letter ignored, others should write to Okrent

Here's his e-mail address: [e-mail]

[Robbien]

15. I sent a short email to help the cause

Mine was short, but hopefully it will help them notice yours.

[BurtWorm]

18. Thank you!

[redqueen]

16. Most helpful!

Thanks for posting it!

:yourock:

[Stephanie]

27. That letter is to the point

It's amazing to be able to reference testimony that was ON TV for everyone to see, and THEN question the reporting on it. Reporting can not be so subjective, when everyone can pause and rewind. Everybody had best stick to the facts in that case - wouldn't you agree?

[BurtWorm]

29. When I see something like the repeated phrase "contempt of Congress"

dropped from a story in the "newspaper of record," I get this little frisson of doubt about my ability to judge what's newsworthy. I begin to think maybe the Dems were engaging in a little partisan politicking. But then I start to think...what if this were 1998, and it was the Republicans charging Reno with potential contempt of Congress. Would that make the Times? Would they put that on the front page? Was there anything else going on yesterday--like the three day-old death of a right-wing president--that was MORE newsworthy than a contempt of congress charge against the AG? :eyes:

[buycitgo]

23. thanks, burt! Daily Howler should be referenced every day

somebody should be appointed, or take it upon themselves, to link each day's column

I know.....finger pointing backwards

looks like his staff is pretty small, heh....as they were "all" on jury duty the other day

he could use some help

maybe his old roommates could afford to give him some cash for staffers

[BurtWorm]

24. I do reference him every day, myself.

I usually link to the ones that really hit me, like this one.

[buycitgo]

25. I put it on desktop, finally

will try to post him here every day

he answers emails, btw

appreciates support

and thank god for NY Review of Books; their critiques of the NYT have been devastating....too bad all criticism of them has centered around Jason Blair

reminds me of Reagan's luck in not getting impeached cause of what happened to Nixon

didn't help Clinton much, of course

[Stephanie]

28. b, please make that your project

Time is running short - time to focus your energies. I think you are a fantastic PR person. If you think Daily Howler is a must-read, then you should devote yourself to publicizing Daily Howler.

It's time to get specific. We should all be choosing what our project for the summer/fall will be.

[BurtWorm]

30. I've e-mailed him a number of times, and he is extremely gracious.

NYRB, I agree, has been outstanding on the media, Bushism, and the war in Iraq. Did you read the Nation appraisal of them a couple of weeks ago? It's probably still on-line.

[rumguy]

26. wow...very damning stuff

page 10!