|
I read their article on the Waxman Plame hearings reprinted in my local rag this morning, so I don't have the url. (Also, I don't want to register with them and give them traffic.) But the article is so biased toward the trivialization of the subject matter of these hearings, and so sneaky about it, in some ways, and blatant, in others, that am moved to write about it, so I will quote the relevant parts.
The article--which in my rag was entitled "Exposure was political, says Plame," and is subtitled inside, "Plame: Republicans label testimony pointless"--should really be presented in full, with the blameworthy paragraphs highlighted in red. They stand out like sore thumbs. The sneaky part--so typical of the NYT--is to present relatively reasonable news reporting, sabotaged with trivial points that undermine the seriousness of Plame's testimony and marginalize what occurred in July 2003, when she and her entire WMD counter-proliferation network were outed, exposed and put in grave danger by a conspiracy of dozens of top White House operatives, including Dick Cheney.
The trivialization begins in paragraph 4, after 3 short paragraphs of relatively straight reporting:
"She spoke at first in a quiet but insistent voice that was nearly inaudible over the crackle of three dozen camera shutters.// Fumbling with the base of her microphone, Plame looked at once nervous, and bored waiting out the photographers. As she talked more, her voice seemed to gain force, volume and velocity--a confident bearing to match her appearance."
What has all to do with grave substance of her testimony? Do they ever do this to Bush, Cheney or their spokespeople? Dwell on their demeanor, and fill news inches with highly subjective remarks about how they "looked" or whether or not their demeanor "matched" their "appearance."
Several more paragraphs of substantive reporting--that they quote her that the White House outing of her "may have endangered agency officials but also 'jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence'." Following this is a brief and fairly accurate account of the "bitter dispute" between her husband Joe Wilson and Bush/Cheney over the bogus Niger/Iraq nuke allegation, and a quick sentence about Libby's conviction, then, inexplicably--as if inserted by the editors--in the same paragraph: "Plame...is reticent by nature and profession. She posed for Vanity Fair, which she declared Friday to be 'more trouble than it was worth.'"
Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction? Vanity Fair? What do these things have to do with each other? Using these facts in this way is obviously intended to suggest that Plame is out for publicity. And no quarter is given on this. (Could she conceivably have been out for publicity to save her life and the lives of her family? Was not publicity her only protection in these circumstances?)
Now comes the coup de grace of trivialization, in paragraph 10: "Her instinctive quiet always seemed more pronounced next to the chronic noisemaking of her husband, the unreticent former diplomat, who was absent from Friday's proceedings. According to a family friend who attended Friday's hearing, Joseph Wilson was skiing in Utah with the couple's 7-year-old twins, awaiting his wife's arrival."
Chronic noisemaking? Chronic NOISEMAKING? He called the Bush Junta out, on their pack of lies about the war. And where would this outed CIA agent be, if he had NOT defended himself as "noisily" as he possibly could. They had put his wife and children in mortal danger! They had more than likely gotten US agents and contacts around the world killed. They were furthermore killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, and sending US soldiers to their deaths, for a pack of lies--for greed, for war profiteering, for oil.
Skiing in Utah. As if Joe Wilson--whom the most dangerous men on earth targeted for destruction--doesn't deserve a break. Not one word about this man's courageous service as ambassador to Iraq during Gulf War I, his service in Nigr, or his extraordinary courage in standing up to these liars and war criminals. Off skiing.
Next paragraph: "But first Valerie Plame..."--before she goes skiing in Utah--"had solemn business to dispatch within Washington. In answer to questions from friendly Democrats on the committee...."
Friendly Democrats. Coloration of her testimony as "political" (White House/Rove "talking point").
The next paragraph (13), questions Henry Waxman's veracity: "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles...said the purpose of the hearings was to consider legislative changes in the way the government handles information about CIA employees. But..." ---BUT!--"...the appearance seemed less a platform for legislation than for Democrats, who now control the committee, to criticize the Bush administration."
The next paragraphs are devoted to the Karl Rove "talking points," as delivered by the two (of 17) Republicans who attended the hearing, concluding with the REPORTERS' agreement with one of them, as follows: "The disclosure of Plame's identity was unintentional....Friday's episode, Davis added, was but a 'media maelstrom,' an assessment no one quibbled with."
Did they ask Henry Waxman whether he agreed that his hearing was a mere "media maelstrom"? Did they ask Plame? How did they conclude that no one "quibbled with" this characterization? Whom did they survey? "NO ONE" quibbled with REPUBLICAN Davis' characterization, according the NYT.
More. Paragraph 20: "She needed only slight coaxing from Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md, to criticize President Bush."
Coaxing. As if "criticizing" pResident Bush, who presided over the outing and endangerment of many US agents and contacts, and the destruction of 20 years work on WMD counterproliferation--an act of treason--is "political." The OUTINGS were done for POLITICAL REASONS--to silence dissent, to cover up a pack of lies about the war, and, no doubt, to hide other crimes. And the NYT reporters clearly are siding with Karl Rove's "talking points" about it--one of the chief criminals in the conspiracy!--that a Congressional hearing about this matter is POLITICAL.
Conclusion: "The audience sat rapt, all eyes fixed on Plame, even when congressmen were talking, as if she could vanish at any moment.// And then she slipped out a side door."
Bear in mind, of course, that the NYT was running these Bushite lies about Iraq WMDs on their front pages throughout the run-up to the war--THEY are liars and war criminals as much as the Bushites are--and that their own reporter, Judith Miller, was meeting clandestinely with convicted liar and obstructionist Scooter Libby, to out Valerie Plame and the Brewster-Jennings network. Not since the latest Associated Press hit piece on Hugo Chavez have I seen such scurrilous "reporting." And this "report" says not one word about that lying scumbag Victoria Toensing and her despicable testimony and HER demeanor ("alpha girl" gangster), nor, for that matter, that lying scumbag Bush, who claimed that the White House was investigating this matter, when it was doing nothing of the kind--nothing!--a shocker that emerged in the later testimony.
Vanity Fair. Chronic noisemaking. Skiing in Utah. "Friendly" Democrats "coaxing" a witness to criticize Bush. 'It's all political' (as Rove has instructed them). Media maelstrom. And major black holes in the revelations at the hearing.
If you needed any further proof which side of this fascist coup the NYT sides with, and how completely unreliable they have become, I don't know what it would be. They PRETEND to be a news organization. And they are clever at that pretense. They are not as obvious as Faux News. Therein lay the danger of the NYT, which touts itself as our nation's "newspaper of record."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
