To me, the New Pravda‘s role in the Iraq debacle resembles the part played by William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal in the far more successful Spanish-American War.
Back to Main
October 24, 2005
WB: The New Pravda‘s Lost Year
Comments
Can You Super-Size a Sulzberger?
The New York Times is not just the nation’s paper of record. It’s a policy making institute and a major power player. It’s an ideological think tank with a huge printing press and an arsenal of high profile editorial writers like Thomas Friedman of the American Likud Party and William Safire — a ghost writer for Ariel Sharon. A reporter with Judith Miller’s credentials could not hope to find a more hospitable environment than the one offered by the “grey lady.”
Miller was far from being a rogue operative. Miss “Run A Muck” was awarded her license to “muck” from Sulzberger, the publisher. When Miller was given a subpoena to testify before the Grand Jury, Sulzberger spared no cost to prevent her from making an appearance. Ultimately, it was his ass on the line and he was willing to spend millions to cover up his willing collaboration in the neocon conspiracy to market the invasion of Iraq. And it was his personal choice of colors that converted his media empire into a publisher of yellow journalism.
Sulzberger is a man who avoids the public glare. Ask your neighbors and co-workers to identify the publisher of the New York Times. Ask them what they think he looks like? Is he old? Is he bald? Is he wise? Can he — by any stretch of the imagination — be considered an intellectual? Is he personally qualified to be a journalist? How exactly did he become publisher of the “paper of record” and the “first draft of history?” Is the New York Times a “crippling distraction” that prevents Americans from getting a credible account of current affairs? Does this institution hinder or enhance the free flow of information? Is it permanently embedded with the government? Should Sulzberger be on the menu? Is a Sulzberger best served with tomatoes or an egg on the face? Can you super-size a Sulzberger? Is that good for your health?
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Oct 24 2005 6:54 utc | 1
The list of NYT’s crimes is very long. This just looks worse because they a) collaborated w/such an infantile Admin. in such a badly conceived operation; and, b) guys have such intense sexual antagonism toward JMiller.
But is it worse than their failure to inform the public in advance about Pearl Harbor, although Sec. of State met w/the Press in advance; their cover-up of the Atomic Bomb atrocities so the US could make nuclear weapons the cornerstone of its foreign policy; their failure to inform Americans in a timely fashion that US govt. was running torture states throughout Latin America; their complicity in the Coup of 2000 & 2004…do I need to go on.
Tablogs need to get their head out of the sand. The function of Elite media is to manipulate the masses into supporting the policies that support the best interests of the Elite. They are not some academic purveyor of truth. Wake Up…
But JMiller will get punished Severely for calling herself Ms RunAmok, as that makes Keller & Sulzie Jr. look weak, as indeed they are. It’s clear, in retrospect, that Sulzie wanted Raines, because his tyranny & bombast better shielded the former’s weakness from view.
Posted by: jj | Oct 24 2005 7:16 utc | 2
Is’nt this just “playing it dumb”, in the hopes that “kicking the can down the road” far enough that, we can all now be implored to “not dwell on the past, but look to the future”? Not unlike the Iraqi constitution referendum (and the vote count) this is the part of the horror movie where we best cover our eyes and scream, in anxious anticipation of the next scene, where all is back to normal. I must wonder though, if Judy has not in some sense, rebelled to her re-casted role as the axe murderer, and as such is holding the grey lady hostage in a ” last act of desperatation” to retain her heroine and double crossed status. A woman scorned?
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 24 2005 7:58 utc | 3
I agree that it’s now obvious to those who pay attention (a small minority, but not without influence) that the Times was a cog in the War-on-Iraq wheel. Whose hand was driving that wheel still remains publicly unresolved, but it doesn’t require great acumen to see at least some of the American protagonists as working, in some cases consciously and duplicitously, for another nation. Why don’t we hear the word “treason” to describe this state of affairs? Is treason a word that can only be pronounced
by conservative blowhards?
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 24 2005 8:11 utc | 4
Judith Miller responds to the Times ombudsdman. The veil of institutional gravity has fallen, and pure acrimony is advancing to center stage. Or is that an elephant lumbering into visibility?
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 24 2005 10:04 utc | 5
Judith Miller responds to the Times ombudsdman. The veil of institutional gravity has fallen, and pure acrimony is advancing to center stage. Or is that an elephant lumbering into visibility?
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 24 2005 10:23 utc | 6
slightly OT
Sometimes you can not even understand what the NYT writes:
Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a defining moment of President Bush’s second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.
Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy. Other officials could also face charges in connection with the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer in 2003.
Who did advise them? The only sense I can make from this is that these guys did get target letters from the prosectuter. If that is the case the NYT should says so, because it is serious news.
—
If the NYT folks were planing the would stop to put out propaganda pieces like Top Syrian Seen as Prime Suspect in Assassination. The piece is ful of anonymous quotes from “a diplomat with intimate knowledge of the [UN] inquiry”, i.e. Bolton and a simple shill against the Syrian government.
The fact that Keller refers to the WMD disinformation campaign as an “intel fiasco” shows he still richly deserves the nickname “Helen.” His notion that the NYT did, ultimately, make full amends is ludicrous, especially in light of its failure last spring to write about the Downing Street memos.
Posted by: ralphbon | Oct 24 2005 11:31 utc | 9
What Keller is admitting, of course, is that when it came to the WMD story — and the care and feeding of Judy Miller — he was powerless in the face of his publisher’s passionate dedication to her and her mission.
This isn’t an admission, it’s a cop out. Keller would love us to all believe his sob story of the overwhelmed gate keeper, but other than his own suspect claims of good faith, I have seen nothing from the Times during Keller’s reign to suggest that he has ever sought to put the truth first. And from the weasly mea culpa of May 2004 to the ‘throw-Miller-from-the-train’ piece last weekend, the transparent apologias always seek first and foremost to insulate the editors and ownership from any culpability, and more importantly liability, for the Time’s continuing journalistic malfeasance.
For instance:
“She’d given her pledge of confidentiality,” said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher. “She was prepared to honor that. We were going to support her.
“But Mr. Sulzberger and the paper’s executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller’s conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not review Ms. Miller’s notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the “Valerie Flame” notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday.”
Translated: Please don’t subpeona us too Mr. Fitgerald. We weren’t obstructing justice. We really knew nothing, honest.
Give me a break. Do these guys really expect us to believe that they would commit millions of the Times money on Miller’s First Amendment defense and NOT first find out all the details about the case? Or that such a kneejerk commitment to journalistic ‘principles’ did not include acting like actual journalists and investigating what really happened? Oh sure.
A far more plausible scenario is that this is a coverup gone terribly wrong. Keller and Sulzberger hoped Judy would ride out the grand jury term in jail so that none of this would come out. But when Fitz gave Judy the prospect of eighteen more months in the slammer, Judy broke down and spilled the beans about her and her newspaper’s incestuous relationship with the Administration. Now the higher ups are pulling a Sgt. Shultz because she has implicated them in what might indeed be obstruction of the Grand Jury at the very least.
Simply put, Keller is not angry at Miller for what she did. Keller is angry at Miller because she told Fitgerald what she did. Keller’s only recourse now is a bad impression of the ‘bad apple’ defense. By bizarrely pretending that Judy is some rogue reporter who is mystically able to avoid any editorial oversight, Keller hopes to make Miller the scapegoat for all the Times water-carrying during his time as editor.
But anyone who has regularly read the Times over the past two years knows that the paper’s penchant for propaganda goes far beyond simply Judy Miller. From burying ledes to burying the important stories on the back pages (A17 and 25 seem to be favorites), the Times has had a consistent EDITORIAL policy of promoting lies and hiding facts.
So spare me the crocodile tears Bill. Any post-mortem whine of editorial impotence is merely a cover for your obvious and active complicity in the yellowest of journalism.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 24 2005 11:33 utc | 10
Update:
Judy just made my point in her reply to the ombudsman:
“I fail to see why I am responsible for my editors’ alleged failure to do some “digging” into my confidential sources and the notebooks. From the start, the legal team that the Times provided me knew who my source was and had access to my notes. I never refused to answer questions or provide any information they requested. No one indicated they had doubts about the stand I took to go to jail.” (emphasis added)
Judy has now droppped the bomb that the Times knew about the Flame note – in direct conflict to what Bill (Sgt. Shultz) Keller claimed last week (quoted above).
Expect a subpeona sometime soon Bill.
Posted by: Night Owl | Oct 24 2005 11:55 utc | 13
. . . so there is presumably the lawyer-client priviledge. Still, that would make the lawyer”team” no more that rote functionaries, i.e., they told me to defend Judy no matter what, including participation in all sorts of conspiracies related to national security.
Posted by: DonS | Oct 24 2005 13:52 utc | 14
Pat Buchanan fires some well-deserved salvos at the NYTimes and the Democrat “opposition”. My favorite zinger
“These propagandists were parroting their own pre-cooked intel, but it now had the imprimatur of the Times. The White House had seduced the good Gray Lady of 43rd Street into turning tricks for war.”
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 24 2005 15:51 utc | 15
Interesting that NYT would choose this time to send Keller off to China to get him out of the line of fire.
As for NYT’s horrendous coverate of Bu$hCo bankrupting the nation, it’s worthwhile to remember the Keller probably doesn’t care since he’s “got his”, having married a Gin (Gilbey’s?) heiress.
Posted by: jj | Oct 24 2005 20:40 utc | 16
Typo coverate ->coverage.
And “NYT would…send” should be Sulzie would …send. (Just as the rich send their wayward children abroad after they’ve screwed up til it blows over, ultra rich guys son sends his editor way away, where the communication is poor, and the paper will be covering China in the future so it’ll be useful down the road.)
Posted by: jj | Oct 24 2005 20:45 utc | 17
Hannah,
Pat Buchanan presents a fascinating figure in the opposition to the war. He will write some of the most intelligent, dead-on editorials, such as that one, and then follow it up by, say, endorsing G-Dub’s re-election last year.
Perhaps that is not so different from the so-called “progressives” lining up behind John Kerry despite their opposition to the war. But it’s still bizarre.
Posted by: Rowan | Oct 24 2005 20:58 utc | 18
I hereby present two honorary “George Carlin Bullshit Detection Awards” to Billmon and Night Owl for their excellence here for they’ve both earned it for catching the Pravda’s pathetic excuses and giving them the telltale “Pffffffffffffft!” in response.
Pinch created this hostile working environment between his journalists and editors and we’re starting to see the fruits now that we’ve got Miller and Keller in print trading Ric Flair chops upon one another. This is all the more reason for Fitzgerald to serve The Pravda with indictments along with the Bush Administration’s own criminals so that they all can give us a Battle Royal LIVE on basic cable.
the whore media have shown for decades now in whose service they work. overtime. constructing institutions of fear. nourishing negligance in itself & its ‘public’
the right in seeking revenge for the 40 years that preceded 2000 – have tried to destroy practically & with public support every humanist project, any project which sought justice, wich sough equity, equality or even reasonableness
to do this the rights natural partner – the whore media have attempted in many many countries to destroy guarantees for workers, any sort of industrial relations, it has attacked education at the basest level – it has tried to undermine the gains in both public health & public housing
it is been a natural symbiosis of power & its whores to try to sell to the people themselves their own valuelessness. katrina was just the ugly extremity of their hatred of the people, of the poor, of the marginalised
the judith millers of this world are crimnals in words & deeds; they deserve to be criminalised. there was perhaps a time when journalism meant something – that time has long gone.
they are parasites & vermin. to be extinguished. especially their always loft claims of imparitality & balance & reason. they are all bill o’reilly & his brutish banter. they do not have a single idea in their head that was not already written for them from some illiterate at a thinktank – who wondered worlds within themselves – only to find it hollow
they are knaves, they are fools, but they are mostly criminals who have aided & abetted criminals in their search & maintenance of power. they have justified atrocity & obscenity & called it news
they merit not a second thought. they have just participated in the last 10 years to their own moral vacuity & the death of the press was a death already foretold in their sluttish acceptance or the murder that passed for iran contra – in that moment aboe all others they proved who they really served – the obscenity just continued to its extreemes of televised smart bombs committing mass murder, of the pleasure taken in bombing the cities of ancient babylon
“our persecutors are swifter than the eagles in heaven”
lamentations 5:19
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 25 2005 1:27 utc | 20
r’giap the only suprising thing about these Miller revelations is that we the public keep falling for it.
Since its inception the mass media has been used by capitalists to get people to kill each other.
I remember my mother telling me as a child about why her father refused to buy any newspaper.
In 1914 even in a remote corner of in those days really remote new zealand cthe newspapers carried stories of Belgian babies being bayoneted by German soldiers.
My grandfather was horrified and encouraged his two older sons to volunteer for France, neither of whom came back.
This was pretty much par for the course as in the tiny remote rural district where they all lived, over 20 of the young men had gone to war, ostensibly to protect Belgian babies and apart from two or three who were invalided back after being gassed (and who succumbed to the Spanish flu pandemic of 1919) none returned.
By 1916 it was common knowledge that the baby bayoneting was propaganda. As British poet turned soldier Robert Graves wrote:
“Propaganda reports of atrocities were, it was agreed, ridiculous. We no longer believed the highly-coloured accounts of German atrocities in Belgium. By atrocities we meant, specifically, rape, mutilation, and torture – not summary shootings of suspected spies, harbourers of spies, or disobedient local officials. If the atrocity-list had to include the accidental-on- purpose bombing or machine-gunning of civilians from the air, the Allies were now committing as many atrocities as the Germans.
French and Belgian civilians had often tried to win our sympathy by exhibiting mutilations of children – stumps of hands and feet, for instance – representing them as deliberate, fiendish atrocities when, as likely as not, they were merely the result of shell-fire. We did not believe rape to be any more common on the German side of the line than on the Allied side. And since a bully-beef diet, fear of death, and absence of wives made ample provision of women necessary in the occupied areas, no doubt the German army authorities provided brothels in the principal French towns behind the line, as the French did on the Allied side. We did not believe stories of women’s forcible enlistment in these establishments. ‘What’s wrong with the voluntary system?’ we asked cynically”.
My grandfather had a large sheep station in the high country and he had become so angry at the way people’s good nature was cynically used by the media and the establishment that he turned the shepherd’s huts dotted around the place over to “Shirkers”. These were young men who had fled the cities to avoid the compulsory conscription that was brought in. Apparently once people woke up to the lies they stopped volunteering.
This was actually a major shift in his thinking, according to my mother, who was too young to remmember any of this at the time it happened, but who does remember her older siblings proudly telling the story as she grew up. He had been a pillar of the local community but apparently the deceit compounded by the loss of his sons radicalised him. He was still chairman of the local community council but when the war finally ended and the district proposed a war memorial (NZ towns are dotted with these reminders of the disproportionate numbers of young people who were killed half a world away in a fight for nothing they could understand)
Anyway apparently my grandfather held out against anything that might glorify war and wanted a public library built in honour of these men. His argument was that if everyone was educated no one would want to fight. He died long before Dr Henry Kissinger appeared on the scene.
There is a great satire by Evelyn Waugh of the corrupt role played by the mass media in persuading the people to fight. It is called Scoop .
Lord Beast or the beast is apparently a caricature of Lord Beaverbrook . Beaverbrook had much in common with the dreadful Murdoch. The exception was Beaverbrook nailed his colours to the mast of the Conservative Party whereas Murdoch has always wanted to stay free of one party, the better to maximise his profits.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 25 2005 5:12 utc | 21
Thanks, Debs. Did your Grandfather win and get a library rather than a wretched statue built?
Posted by: jj | Oct 25 2005 5:23 utc | 22
@jj The pragmatic presbyterians decided that this was one time that money wasn’t the most important issue and Glenorchy is still graced with a statue and a library (LOL).
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 25 2005 6:49 utc | 23
One of my favorite reporters, has a very worthwhile
bit of background on Judith Miller, some of her friends, victims, and critics. Worth reading even if you think you already know more than you want to about the “Pinch and Judy Show”.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 25 2005 6:57 utc | 24
@ b real
It’s always nice when someone follows a link and finds it worthwhile. By the way, it seems that the prosecution is about to finish its case in the Sami Al-Arian trial. A friend has written me that she believes that the trial has not been fair. A press conference is scheduled for 11:45 in Front of the Federal Court House in Tampa. If
anyone has further information on what’s happening I’d be interested to hear about it.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 25 2005 15:39 utc | 26
Good post but check that Hearst quote. I think I remember hearing that the quote was actually from Citizen Kane, and not from Hearst himself.
Posted by: bob gardner | Oct 25 2005 17:46 utc | 27