Glenn Greenwald: The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Glenn Greenwald
Monday July 9, 2007 06:50 EST
The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times

Following up on yesterday's post, I want to return to the topic of Sunday's column by NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, because the more one thinks about it, the more extraordinary it is. It is really a watershed moment for revealing what our media is and what role it plays.

The profound (and confessed) journalistic failures of the NYT in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq is, without question, one of the worst scandals in that paper's history -- perhaps its worst. At exactly the time when journalistic skepticism was needed most, as our country debated whether to invade another country which had not attacked us, the Times allowed itself to be completely manipulated by the government and/or eagerly participated in its propaganda campaign, obediently reciting the government's false claims on its front pages and selling this war to its then-trusting readers.

The Times itself has been forced to acknowledge these failures and solemnly insists that it has learned, and taken to heart, the important lessons about the need for skepticism when it comes to government claims about war. Back in February, when Michael Gordon's gullible, government-reliant reports about Iran's actions in Iraq prompted a tidal wave of blogosphere-generated (and FAIR-generated) reader complaints, then-Public Editor Byron Calame spoke with NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller about these complaints:

The situation closely parallels the pre-war period when The Times prominently reported that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Deeply shamed when they were not found, the paper publicly acknowledged that its coverage had been "insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged."

Times editors clearly were mindful of the W.M.D. coverage as they pursued the Iranian weapons issue. "W.M.D. has informed everything we've done on Iran," Bill Keller, the executive editor, told me three days after the Baghdad briefing. "We don't have to tell the reporters to be as skeptical as possible. W.M.D. restored a level of skepticism."

But Hoyt's column yesterday demonstrates that exactly the opposite is true. The Times is still doing exactly what it did before the invasion of Iraq -- the activities that supposedly brought it such "shame" -- and in many cases, it is exactly the same people who are doing it.

Just consider what Hoyt's criticisms yesterday mean. These criticisms apply not only to one article, but rather, to a whole series of articles. The criticisms concern not some obscure topic or isolated special report, but rather, the single most important political and journalistic issue of this decade -- the war in Iraq and the American media's coverage of government claims about that war.

more...

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Well, duh

The puppet masters were pleased, and they are still pleased.

The masters have not changed, neither, apparently, have the puppets.

[babylonsister]

3. But it's certainly nice to have someone lay it all out so eloquently. nt

[WCGreen]

5. That was something that should be commended...

But also used to rectify the situation...

[maxsolomon]

2. i found Hoyt's column most interesting

to actually see the "stenography" charge (in relation to "Al Queda in Iraq") aired on the op-ed page, on Sunday, no less.

the charge still stands - they do not challenge the assertions of known liars in the administration or the pentagon. they merely repeat them, giving them the appearance of validity. and until the NYT calls BS on every word that comes out of their mouths, the rest of the nation's dailies will continue aping their behavior.

[babylonsister]

4. Is this the Hoyt article you read? I didn't realize it was an op-ed...

Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08pubed.html?...

Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner

By CLARK HOYT
Published: July 8, 2007

AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.

Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, “We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.” The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.

Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.

But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.

more...

[maxsolomon]

10. it was by "the public editor" - technically an editorial, i think

mr. hoyt is representing "us", the readers.

[EFerrari]

6. Worst except for covering up OH 2004 and that little wiretapping thing

FOR A YEAR.

[charlie]

7. "W.M.D. restored a level of skepticism."

That's too rich. Like the way Jayson Blair restored a level of skepticism that lasted maybe a week before they let Miller run off the leash? The skepticism that made them appoint an ombudsman whose parting column gratuitously called Paul Krugman a liar? The skepticism that made them sit on the NSA spying story for a year, at the behest of the White House?

[KoKo]

8. Hoyt won't last long with this kind of diatribe against the NYT's Status Quo...

I wondered why he'd been brough in...but it was only to smack him down when he took his "new job" too seriously.

NYT is worse than ever. They tried to apologize...rang hollow and they went back to what they've always done best. RW always blamed them for being too liberal...but, like with all RW views...look for the "opposite" of what the Wingers say for the TRUTH OF IT. :-(

[Kurovski]

9. K&R. (nt)