Juan Cole examines the tangled web between the New York Times, Rupert Murdoch, a post 9/11 America and patriotism in the run-up to Iraq war:
"The NYT had no sources to speak of inside the Bush administration, a real drawback in covering Washington, because it was a left of centre newspaper in a political environment dominated by the Right. Miller had sources among the Neoconservatives, with whom she shared some key concerns (biological weapons, the threat of Muslim radicalism, etc.) So she could get the Washington "scoops." And her perspective skewed Right in ways that could protect the NYT from charges that it was consistently biased against Bush. Of course, in retrospect, Bush's world was a dangerous fantasy, and giving it space on the front page of the NYT just sullied the Grey Lady with malicious prevarications."
And the price for such cosiness? Over 2000 American dead and tens of thousands of Iraqis murdered (Iraqi Body Count claims over 30,000 but the figure is likely to be much higher.)
"The NYT had no sources to speak of inside the Bush administration, a real drawback in covering Washington, because it was a left of centre newspaper in a political environment dominated by the Right. Miller had sources among the Neoconservatives, with whom she shared some key concerns (biological weapons, the threat of Muslim radicalism, etc.) So she could get the Washington "scoops." And her perspective skewed Right in ways that could protect the NYT from charges that it was consistently biased against Bush. Of course, in retrospect, Bush's world was a dangerous fantasy, and giving it space on the front page of the NYT just sullied the Grey Lady with malicious prevarications."
And the price for such cosiness? Over 2000 American dead and tens of thousands of Iraqis murdered (Iraqi Body Count claims over 30,000 but the figure is likely to be much higher.)
3 Comments:
No Antony - it can't be true.
The NYT has been accused of many things over the years - murder, orgies, bestialilty - arr know cos arr been thar an soes mar sista.
But to accuse NYT of Iraq casualities because of its reporting is simply preposterous.
The main villains after the neocons are the Democrats for not opposing the invasion (or for those who did oppose it - they did it so meekly)
I must respectfully disagree. Of course the Democrats are complicit in all this, but the media's role was key, and not just the Murdoch press (his role is often over-played).
The NYT is front and centre of this debate.
There is much more of this story to come...
Yes AL.
Definitely Murdoch (and his many organs) have sabre-rattled and are therefore complicit.
Over NYT - I didn't let my complete ignorance of its output and leanings ruin a good argument.
Their are many villians in this story. Bin Laden's media spectacular in New York comes into it.
The widespread desire in the US for revenge then came into play. Afghanistan, alone, was too obscure - a demegogue (Saddam) fitted the bill nicely.
So news papers both fed and tapped into base revenge.
Post a Comment
<< Home