[Forgive me if I've kept "Theology As Sport?" up front too long. I simply wanted to give everyone involved, and those interested, as much time as possible to respond or opine. Thanks for your understanding.]
There is much abuzz about something, even about everything. Where to start?
We have all heard by now how The New York Times reported -- against the wishes of the US executive branch -- that the executive branch has been spying on bank records of terrorists without a court order (at least, I think I have this right). Of course, we all suspected this sort of investigative probing by the executive branch anyway, particularly since immediately after 9.11.01 we all heard President Bush announce that terrorists' financial transactions were followed and their assets were frozen or seized. So we knew that this sort of thing was going on. Perhaps we did not know the mechanics or the extent, but we knew something was up.
I am not here going to denounce The New York Times as treasonous. What I am here to do is announce that, at least for the The New York Times, this sort of reporting is surely dangerous. In fact, it may be the worst kind of news the Times can report if it wants to maintain itself as an authentic and distinct voice in American political culture. Let me explain.
Let us begin with a few assumptions. The first is that on many levels The New York Times (NYT) is the most important news outlet in the United States: when it sneezes the rest of the media often catch a cold. Let us also assume that the conservatives in this country have pretty much painted an effective picture (a rather easy one to paint, since it is nearly paint-by-numbers), that the NYT is hopelessly leftist, is untrustworthy, takes great liberty with the facts, and bends everything according to a blatantly socialist bias. Compelling books have been written about this sort of thing; books which are widely read and believed.
But there is more. The Times is no doubt still reeling from the Jayson Blair debacle. The Right surely exploits this fact; the Right reminds us that The Times has actually fabricated stories, or at least fabricated facts pertinent to certain stories, ostensibly proving that the paper is virtually without merit. Moreover, the Left has also slammed The Times, vociferously and bitterly complaining that The Times was complicit in the unjust "run up" to war in Iraq; that Judith Miller's reporting may have single-handedly galvanized American support for President Bush's imperialistic invasion of Iraq. It is even suggested that Ms. Miller was spoon-fed propaganda from the Bush White House solely to wreak havoc on those news reports (if there were any) published by less well-known papers and which offered countervailing information to Ms. Miller's pro-invasion fodder. In short, let us assume that The New York Times is a recognized player in national affairs that is believed to be amazingly vulnerable to manipulation and falsehoods.
What are we hearing now? We are hearing, from the Left particularly, that The New York Times is to be commended for being forthright, for keeping the electorate informed. And we are hearing, from readers on the Right, that The Times is nearly treasonous for revealing a secret program used to detect actions of members of terrorist groups. But is either position right?
There is a very curious part to this whole report that deserves a comment, and that curiosity is this: the Bush Administration and even some members of Congress (of both parties) begged The New York Times NOT to run this story. And here is what must be asked (and really why this whole thing is curious): Why do we believe that the White House and Congressional members were serious? Why do we believe that they REALLY did not want this story told? I mean, how do we know that they did not actually WANT this story printed, but only gave the appearance that they did not?
In other words, is it not possible that The New York Times was ONCE AGAIN fooled by the Administration; that the Administration did this, in an election year, so the Republican Party can -- with justification -- repeatedly slam The Times as reckless, treasonous; that the paper is blindly greedy for a reputable bottom line? Can't the Republicans now dynamically exploit this all, gaining advantage over their Democratic opponents, by making everyone wary of the patriotism of the left-wing media?
Plus, how is it that THIS sort of potentially spoon-fed story raises cheers from liberal readers when Judith Miller's allegedly spoon-fed work merited nothing but scorn and derision?
It is utterly ironic how uncircumspect The Times' editor Bill Keller sounds in his essay about the whole noisy affair. He even gives a bit of a US history lesson, reviewing for us how the founders of America expected an aggressive and independent press, one that "rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish." For it is utterly ironic that Mr. Keller takes the President at his word regarding the publishing of the story: that it was unfortunate for America and perhaps even dangerous to American interests in fighting terror. Again, what if the White House only feigned concern about the report? Mr. Keller's note to readers proves that he has not thought of that possibility at all.
What this boils down to, in part, is that The New York Times might have been hoist by its own petard, so to speak. It is not wrong to recommend that The Times be more circumspect when printing such volatile stories; nor is it wrong to admit that The Times may have found itself in a damnable catch-22: either way it was going to get hit by criticism. Sadly, because of The Times troubled past, this sort of story has garnered The Times little favor, for Republicans can berate for political gain The Times' alleged lack of loyalty to America in a time of war; and the Democrats can lament once again that The Times' has fallen prey to manipulation that creates the impression that the Grey Lady is foolish, greedy and anti-patriotic. I mean, when an Administration begs you not to run a story, aren't you tempted to think you've got a hot one?
But what this finally boils down to is that we really don't know where to turn for truly independent and trustworthy news.
Just a few hasty thoughts.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: The New York Times, Treason, Judith Miller, Bill Keller
No comments:
Post a Comment