NYT - Who Are You? - No Really, Tell Me, WHO ARE YOU?

[blue2helix]

Nice editorial from the NYT today entitled "The Great Divider" which delivers a scathing indictment of President Bush's destructive and misguided behavior. However, NYT editorials are harder to digest these days. I can't help but always detect a synthetic chemical aftertaste called Judith Miller. I believe a finer vintage would have fully extricated this pollutant from its wine.

Perhaps the reason that this bitter flavor persists is because the NYT facilitated a bloody mega tragedy by passing off unverified opinion (WMD) as fact to a trusting and deliberately uninformed public. To date, I have never heard from the NYT a proper explanation for this behavior in terms of either motive or process.

Forgive my cynicism (preferably skepticism when possible), but in today's terror climate, cynicism seems to be the only diagnostic tool available by which we can listen to the tortured and dying heartbeat of truth.

If the coming elections do in fact portend a historical moment of national consciousness and accountability, I hope that the NYT has the courage to come clean and join in the redemptive process.

But in the meantime, perhaps thou protesth too much NYT.

[Stephanie]

1. Or perhaps it's the neocon still on the payroll.

David Brooks

[Joe Bacon]

2. The only credible voice the Screw York Times has is Krugman

All the others lied any lie to install President Asshole or they are Johnny come latelys.

The only person I trust at the Screw York Times is Krugman, as for Dowd, note Whoreen's vicious attack on Obama worthy of a KKK Grand Dragon and as for Frank Rich, well, that's the same liar who trashed Al Gore in 2000 and blew Bush at the same time.

[blue2helix]

3. Who Has Oversight & Why no Explanation for JMiller Deception?

I think my problem is with whomever has the authority, ownership, oversight (whatever you want to call it), to be accountable and satisfactorily explain the Judith Miller fiasco to the public.

The columnists are columnists, we know they are opinionated, however we agree with them or not. But the news is supposed to responsibly verified by the more respected institutions.

After the Judith Miller fallout, important unanswered questions still remain. Was the NYT really so egregiously fooled, or was it deliberately complicit in the farce? Either way it's a fundamental problem that needs a statement of responsibility followed by a serious overhaul of oversight and I never saw evidence of either.