New York Times pot, meet the NeoCon kettle. I call you out, AGAIN

[EFerrari]

Today's NYTs editorial took Dick Cheney to task for using inside knowledge of a terrorist plot for political gain.

Here is the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1883389

And, I'm sure that most will agree, what Cheney did was unethical, even repugnant.

But, I have to call you out again, New York Times. Because Mr. Cheney only sat on this story for a few days. You sat on the NSA Wiretapping story for a YEAR -- that is, you sat on it until after the 2004 Federal election. Apparently you have a greater tolerance for exploiting the American people than Dick Cheney does. That's remarkable, to say the least.

Let's review: Not only did the New York Times not report the massive voter suppression and disenfranchisement that was obvious in Ohio on election night, it also didn't report the riots that broke out when voters began objecting physically to being separated from their ballot.

The New York Times also promised to report Ohio -- should its two ace reporters, Burke and Purdy, find a story there. I have that on the best authority, the promise of the then Public Editor Okrent. Mr. Okrent, who found it necessary to mass mail the hundreds -- thousands? -- of subscribers who were demanding coverage of the theft of their election in Ohio.

We are still waiting. Nearly two years and a pile of literature later, we are still waiting.

As we approach the 2006 midterm elections, it may be that readers, or, voters will not turn to the New York Times for their news. Because the New York Times has also failed to report the repressive consequences of HAVA which imposes insecure voter registration databases and electronic voting on most of the electorate. So, it looks like, right off the bat, the NYTs isn't the "go to" place to understand what is happening to our vote, to our franchise. And as election fraud has always been mainly a race crime, there will be a colorful segment of the American public not reading in droves.

That Mr. Cheney pursues a suicidal self serving course of action is somewhat understandable. He is in his later years and he may yet find a way to take it with him. That the New York Times pursues a suicidal editorial policy is less comprehensible. And were it not such an utter betrayal of its readers' trust, it would be almost saddening.

Elizabeth Ferrari
San Francisco