the toadie new york times posted:

By 2002, I was also starting to clash with the editors over our coverage of the Bush administration’s claims about pre-war intelligence on Iraq. My stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether.

One of the few stories I managed to get on the front page cast doubt on reports that an Iraqi intelligence officer had met with 9/11 plotter Mohamed Atta in Prague before the attacks on New York and Washington. But Doug Frantz, then the investigations editor in New York, felt that he had to sneak it onto Page 1. “Given the atmosphere among the senior editors at The Times, I was concerned that the story would not make it to page 1 on a day when everyone was convened around the table,” Frantz emailed me recently. “So I decided that it was too important to appear inside the paper and went ahead and offered it on a Sunday, a day when the senior editors weren’t often involved in the discussion.”

Then-Executive Editor Howell Raines was believed by many at the paper to prefer stories that supported the case for war. But Raines now says he was not pro-war, and that he did not object to putting my Prague story on the front page. “I never told anyone at any level on the Times that I wanted stories that supported the war,” he told me in an email.

Meanwhile, Judy Miller, an intense reporter who was based in New York but had sources at the highest levels of the Bush administration, was writing story after story that seemed to document the existence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Her stories were helping to set the political agenda in Washington.

Miller and I were friends — in fact, I was probably one of her closest friends in the Washington bureau at the time. In the year before 9/11, Miller worked on a remarkable series of stories about Al Qaeda that offered clear warnings about its new power and intent. In the months after 9/11, she and I both scrambled to document Al Qaeda’s role in the attacks and the counterterrorism response by the United States. We were both part of a team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for our coverage of terrorism and 9/11.

But in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Miller and other Times reporters were landing a string of big stories that dazzled the editors, I was getting frustrated that so few of my sources in the intelligence community were willing to talk to me about what they thought of the Bush administration’s case for war. I kept hearing quiet complaints that the White House was pressuring CIA analysts to cook the books and deliver intelligence reports that followed the party line on Iraq. But when I pressed, few were willing to provide specifics. Intermediaries would sometimes tell me that they were receiving anguished calls from CIA analysts, but when I asked to talk to them, they refused.

After weeks of reporting in late 2002 and early 2003, I was able to get enough material to start writing stories that revealed that intelligence analysts were skeptical of the Bush administration’s evidence for going to war, particularly the administration’s assertions that there were links between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda.

But after I filed the first story, it sat in the Times computer system for days, then weeks, untouched by editors. I asked several editors about the story’s status, but no one knew.

Finally, the story ran, but it was badly cut and buried deep inside the paper. I wrote another one, and the same thing happened. I tried to write more, but I started to get the message. It seemed to me that the Times didn’t want these stories.

What angered me most was that while they were burying my skeptical stories, the editors were not only giving banner headlines to stories asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were also demanding that I help match stories from other publications about Iraq’s purported WMD programs. I grew so sick of this that when the Washington Post reported that Iraq had turned over nerve gas to terrorists, I refused to try to match the story. One mid-level editor in the Washington bureau yelled at me for my refusal. He came to my desk carrying a golf club while berating me after I told him that the story was bullshit and I wasn’t going to make any calls on it.

As a small protest, I put a sign on my desk that said, “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” It was New York Journal publisher William Randolph Hearst’s supposed line to artist Frederic Remington, whom he had sent to Cuba to illustrate the “crisis” there before the Spanish-American War. I don’t think my editors even noticed the sign.

quote:

The Times article [written by the new publisher] portrays a conflict between the intellectual elites in Madison who “predictably oppose” Walker’s plans and the real Wisconsinites “away from Madison” who believe that “public workers needed to share in the sacrifice that their own families have been forced to make.” It quotes six people who worked in the private sector who supported Walker’s crackdown on public sector unions, and only two who didn’t like it.

...A poll at the time found that 57 percent of Wisconsinites overall supported the right of public unions to collectively bargain, while just 37 percent opposed it...

The piece originally described Hahn as “a union man from a union town” who nevertheless believed “something needs to be done … and quickly” about greedy public unions. However, after the UAW found no record of Hahn as a member, the Times ran a correction reading that while Hahn “described himself to a reporter as a ‘union guy,’ he now says that he has worked at unionized factories, but was not himself a union member.”

quote:

The questions we are facing today are not so different from the ones our predecessors faced 100 years ago. Can the gap between rich and poor be closed, or is it destined to continue to widen? Can we put the future needs of a city and a nation above the narrow, present-day interests of a few? Can we use a portion of the monumental sums of wealth that we are generating to invest in an inclusive and competitive future? The answer to all of these questions is still rumbling beneath New York City.

got any sevens posted:

are 100% of opeds garbage or just 99%?

got any sevens posted:

NYTimes could be the New Alderaan Times, saying we should support the empire's new weapon project because we need to keep an eye on those shifty people on Tattooine

the bitcoin of weed posted:

what even is the point of this newspaper

comedyblissoption posted:

manufacturing consent

comedyblissoption posted:

manufacturing consent

comedyblissoption posted:

manufacturing consent

gradenko_2000 posted:

I've been slowly watching that through youtube, and I finally got the context of why Chomsky was misleadingly called a genocide denialist with regards Cambodia.

I also had no idea of the history of the East Timor thing, that was a little shocking with how bad it was.

got any sevens posted:

NYTimes could be the New Alderaan Times, saying we should support the empire's new weapon project because we need to keep an eye on those shifty people on Tattooine

Fallen Hamprince posted:

leftists think everything is a star war WATCH ANOTHER MOVIE COMMIES!!!

Shear Modulus posted:

The New York Times is good news........









for Jeb!!!!!!

got any sevens posted:

i would like to know more

Fallen Hamprince posted:

leftists think everything is a star war WATCH ANOTHER MOVIE COMMIES!!!

Shear Modulus posted:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/616303020574441472?s=17

Shear Modulus posted:

The New York Times is good news........









for Jeb!!!!!!

Shear Modulus posted:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/616303020574441472?s=17

Shear Modulus posted:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/616303020574441472?s=17

Shear Modulus posted:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/616303020574441472?s=17

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/plante/status/949319656229220354

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/dcwoodruff/stat...r%3D239%23pti19

Fallen Hamprince posted:

He definitely seems to be the model for Republicans picking battles with the president though, in that he picks no battles with the president.

GalacticAcid posted:

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

i think for most aggressive whiner at the NYT, nothing can ever top jonathan weisman after people started unsubbing over bret stephens' first garbo climate change denial column therein

https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/858427028797886466