Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Thanks, NYT, for Four More Years of Crime.

I am so mad I could spit.

Liberal media? What motherfucking liberal media?

Apparently, the New York Times knew about the illegal wiretapping before the 2004 elections, and sat on the story!

Of course, now that it's finally come out, conservatives say that it's timed by liberals to keep the Patriot Act from being reauthorized. But, honest to God - the intention and ability of this Administration to squash stories unfavorable to it is just staggering. The fearmongering that is the hallmark of this batch of criminals knows no limits. And it has proved immensely effective in pushing their police-state agenda. The magic words "9/11" are trotted out as the answer to every bludgeoning of the Bill of Rights, no matter how egregious.

But the New York Times had a story that was ready to go - that is, until the Busheviks cried "9/11" and "national security". And, as always, the problem is not the breaking of the law, but the reporting of the breaking of the law that has BushCo in a red rage. Now Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says that
"The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event. We published the story when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it." Keller rejected "the suggestion that the timing of the story was linked to next month's scheduled publication of "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," the book by Times reporter James Risen that includes information on the National Security Agency spying program.
I contend, and have contended for a long time, that one of the most important factors in the takeover of our government has been a lack of the free press. We've always had rogue elements and powerful cabals in this country, but until now, we've had a press that would speak out about them. And when there was a chance to learn the truth about the Bush Administration's breaking of the law before the election, and a possible chance that the revelation of wiretapping innocent American citizens would hurt Bush's chances of re-election, as it was what finally brought down Richard Nixon, the same story which the NYT has finally decided is okay to publish (a year later) was squashed. Not only that, but when the Resident just flat-out, bald-face lied about wiretapping in 2004 while campaigning for re-election, stating:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."...
...nobody at the NYT who knew the truth said a damn thing. It's one thing to not mention wiretapping without a warrant if it is so important to national security (which, since we have an almost instant warrant system in place, it isn't) but when you just plain lie through your teeth to the American people and the press knows the truth, it is unconscionable to remain silent. And this grievous sin of omission is as responsible as anything else for the re-election (supposed) of this grotesque oligarchy. If the American people would have reacted then as they are reacting now, the bizarre Ohio results would not have been accepted by the country. We can see that we cannot trust this Administration to tell us the truth. But to have that information withheld from us by a cowardly, sycophantic and self-protecting press makes them complicit in the deception, and for this I am beyond furious. Oh, now that someone's writing a book about it anyway, they boldly come out with the story. What courage! The Judith Miller type of courage.

Gee, thanks, motherfuckers. I hope you're enjoying your cozy relationship with the oligarchy.

Journalism is dead.

Can democracy be far behind?

2 comments:

Kvatch said...

In addition, the NYT is now timing the stories...as if they've got 'em all queued up and ready to publish. The story that, "...gee, some of those wiretaps were not, in fact, limited to domestic to foreign communcations but rather domestic to domestic," was published this morning.

Commerce, indeed.

G said...

Sad as it sounds, this is nothing new. Mainstream journalism in the US has been on its deathbed for some time now.

A shortlist includes the Big 3:

- Vietnam photos and coverage from reporters in the troop units relegated to (at the time) indy magazines such as Rolling Stone

- Jayson Blair making his stories up

- Clinton and Lewinsky: Newsweek had the story first, got cold feet the night before production, Drudge had hold of it & decided to run with it after he found out Newsweek had spiked it.

And many others, such as Time darkening O.J's mugshot to make him "blacker", and every single airing of FoxNews. This latest news boner just gets added to the list.

No wonder Canada's CBC is the highest-rated non-US newscast watched in the States ... thank God for DirecTV!