Author Topic: The New York Times Sucks  (Read 1859 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ultra

  • Founder, Publisher Emeritus &
  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 7506
  • Country: us
  • Puzzle Points 20
  • More than you bargained for
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
    • AutoPuzzles
The New York Times Sucks
« on: January 02, 2007, 12:38:48 AM »
I thought MG would really enjoy this one.   :)



Hang Times: A Whitewash of White House Complicity

 People often write to Empire Burlesque in search of an answer to one of the great conundrums of these modern times, namely: "Why are the American people such suckers? How could they – or, to be more exact, how could a significant number of them – ever have fallen for the transparent bullshit of such third-rate goobers as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest? How could the American people be so ignorant and misinformed about what goes on in the world? How can they be so ignorant and misinformed of their own history, of the dirty deals done in their names for years on end? How can this be?"

Good folk, look no further, for we do indeed have the answer here. If you want to know precisely how the American people are kept deliberately ignorant, simply click on the link to this story in the nation's "newspaper of record," the journal which sets the standard for and largely determines the news agenda of the American press: The Defiant Despot Oppressed Iraq for More than 30 Years. There, in the stately pages of the New York Times, you will find some 5,200 words written by Neil MacFarquhar detailing the rise, reign and fall of the Iraqi dictator. You will thrill to the usual gory details of torture, murder and savagery; you will tut at the violent barbarism of the rural riff-raff who got so far above his raising; you will snarl with condemnation at the mad aggressor who launched "continual wars" in the region, as the diligent scribe informs us.

[The actual total number of wars launched by Saddam Hussein was, er, two: the same number launched by George W. Bush – if, that is, you don't count the never-ending, ever-expanding, great googily-moogily "Global War on Terror and Extremists and Radicals," in which case, Bush's "continual wars" far exceed the two conflicts instigated by Saddam – one of which was overtly approved by Reagan Administration, the other tacitly approved by the Bush I administration.]

But what you will not find is any detail or examination whatsoever of the prominent, direct and continuing role the United States government played in bringing Saddam to power, maintaining him in office, underwriting his tyranny, and rewarding his aggression. This decades-long history – beginning with the CIA's assistance in not one but two coups that first brought the Baath Party to power then cemented the hold of Saddam's internal faction on the country through the journey to Baghdad by the obsequious Donald Rumsfeld who came bearing words of support, bags of cash and military high-tech for Saddam's chemical weapons attacks on Iran down to the delivery of money, WMD technology and other goods of war by George Herbert Walker Bush up to the very day before Saddam's long-threatened invasion of Kuwait, which Bush's personal representative had told the dictator was of no concern to the United States – does not appear in McFarquhar's mountain of prose.

You'll find damning reference to Saddam's gas attack on Iraqi Kurds during the Reagan-Bush-supported war with Iran; but you will find not a single word of how the Bush I administration, which included Powell and Cheney, fought hard to kill off Congressional condemnation of the gassing. Nor does McFarquhar see fit to inform the public how Bush I signed a presidential directive mandating that U.S. government agencies forge ever-stronger ties with Iraq, despite the caveats of his own intelligence apparatus. And although McFarquhar finds space to quote from Saddam's ludicrous novels, he cannot quite squeeze in any reference to the Congressional investigations and other probes that revealed how Bush I secretly financed Saddam and, with British help, secretly supplied him with advanced weaponry through a series of corporate cut-outs and funneling cash through the bowels of what the U.S. Senate described as "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history" (until Junior Bush's gang came along), the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

But do let's be fair. The New York Times is not Pravda; it does not simply engage in the wholesale whitewashing of history in order to comfort the comfortable and keep the rabble from knowing what their betters really get up to behind the glowing video screen. No, its whitewashing is often incomplete; little flecks of partial truth will occasionally show through. [And to be genuinely fair, the paper does employ some journalists of genuine courage and merit on its staff, such as the estimable Carlotta Gall, whose reports from Afghanistan have done much to reveal the ugly realities behind that "good" and forgotten war.]

And so it is with McFarquhar's piece. For it is not entirely accurate to say that he does not mention U.S. support for Saddam anywhere in the story. In a bold act of speaking truth to power, the fearless McFarquhar devotes one whole sentence of 47 words to what he calls the American "tipping" toward Saddam in his war with Iran. Of course, the phrase comes some 2,278 words into the piece, by which time it's likely that very few people would still be plowing through his – prose might be too strong a word; let's just call it his cud-like assemblage of well-chewed conventional wisdom. Here is the buried phrase entire:

    The fear that an Islamic revolution would spread to an oil producer with estimated reserves second only to Saudi Arabia tipped the United States and its allies toward Baghdad and they provided weapons, technology and, most important, secret satellite images of Iran’s military positions and intercepted communications.

[Because lord knows, we wouldn't want Iraq and its oil reserves given over to Islamic sectarians tied to Iran, now would we? Perish the thought!]

That's all McFarquhar has to say on this embarrassing subject. But credit where it's due: he did say something. Pravda never would have done that.

There is simply no way to understand the reign of Saddam Hussein, nor the past few decades of Iraq's history, without including the very real and important role that the United States has played in shaping these realities. The reason that tens of thousands of American soldiers have been killed and maimed – and that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered, and millions more plunged into hellish suffering – is because this history has been buried, perverted, ignored or forgotten. And one of the main engines of this deliberately induced national amnesia is the New York Times and its fellow media mandarins.

January 1, 2007

Chris Floyd is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
“Honi soit qui mal y pense”


Click the pic....... Name the car

Offline MG

  • Free Radical
  • *
  • Posts: 1794
  • Country: us
  • Puzzle Points 12
  • Designated Driver
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: The New York Times Sucks
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2007, 06:25:36 AM »
Well, having just finished Frank Rich's book entitled The Greatest Story Ever Sold, I quite agree that The Gray Lady was MIA when it came to informing the public. But since lots of folks don't GET their news from the Times, there is quite enough blame to go around, media-wise.  Btw, Rich does not spare his employers at the Times in his book.

If you want to understand more about how the US and Saddam had been asshole buddies for 30+ years, the video at the end of this link may be of assistance.  You may be surprised at some of the leading lights of th present maladministration who figure prominently in it, too.


http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the number of moments that take your breath away!

Offline Ultra

  • Founder, Publisher Emeritus &
  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 7506
  • Country: us
  • Puzzle Points 20
  • More than you bargained for
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
    • AutoPuzzles
Re: The New York Times Sucks
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2007, 02:24:30 PM »
I quite agree that The Gray Lady was MIA when it came to informing the public. But since lots of folks don't GET their news from the Times, there is quite enough blame to go around, media-wise.

I feel the article I posted goes much further in their condemning the NYT.  As it mentions, the NYT is the benchmark of the american press.  It is something the "The Gray Lady" prides itself upon.  With that in mind, it's unwillingness to take the government to task for it's 30+ years of policies designed to create and subjugate the likes of Saddam lay the foundation for much of the other outlets you mention "following the herd."

Again, another article, going into other examples to help highlight how the NYT sucks.  :nana:



Where the New York Times Is Coming From

Below are the headlines of four obituaries that have run in the New York Times. The first is that of the recent obituary of the Anti-Communist Augusto Pinochet. The next three are those of the obituaries of the Communist mass murderers Mao, Stalin, and Lenin. Please be sure to note how many are described as having ruled by terror.

    December 11, 2006, Augusto Pinochet, Dictator Who Ruled by Terror in Chile, Dies at 91

    September 10, 1976, Friday, . . . Mao Tse-tung Dies in Peking at 82; Leader of Red China's Revolution

    March 6, 1953, Friday, Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia Into Mighty Socialist State; RUTHLESS IN MOVING TO GOALS

    January 24, 1924, Thursday, ENORMOUS CROWDS VIEW LENIN'S BODY AS IT LIES IN STATE; Wait Hours in Snow and Zero Temperature Outside Moscow Nobles' Club. COFFIN CARRIED FIVE MILES Members of Council of Commissars Stagger Under Load, Refusing Gun Caisson. LENIN CALLED A CHRISTIAN Archbishop Summons Synod to Declare Founder of Bolshevism Member of Church. ENORMOUS CROWDS VIEW LENIN'S BODY

In these headlines we find utter condemnation of a dictator who was relatively mild as dictators go, but who was Anti-Communist; his leading characteristic was allegedly rule by “Terror.”

In contrast, in the case of Communist mass murderers we find non-judgmental tolerance in the headlines, along with a studious refusal to mention the incalculably greater terrors they caused. More than that, we find positive esteem and enthusiasm in the headlines for the Communist mass murderers. Thus Mao was the “Leader of Red China’s Revolution”; Stalin allegedly transformed “Russia Into Mighty Socialist State”; and Lenin’s funeral was described as a phenomenon of near worshipful enthusiasm: “…COFFIN CARRIED FIVE MILES Members of Council of Commissars Stagger Under Load, Refusing Gun Caisson…”

It is patterns such as this that lead some people to think that the reporting of the New York Times is colored by its politics and that the color of its politics is red.

January 2, 2007

George Reisman is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, and is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.

“Honi soit qui mal y pense”


Click the pic....... Name the car

Offline MG

  • Free Radical
  • *
  • Posts: 1794
  • Country: us
  • Puzzle Points 12
  • Designated Driver
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: The New York Times Sucks
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2007, 02:53:40 PM »
Well, I dunno. These days, I tend to get most of my news of the world from Al Jazeera.  I find their reportage fair and balanced!    ;D
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the number of moments that take your breath away!

Offline Ultra

  • Founder, Publisher Emeritus &
  • Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 7506
  • Country: us
  • Puzzle Points 20
  • More than you bargained for
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
    • AutoPuzzles
Re: The New York Times Sucks
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2007, 02:54:19 PM »
Well, I dunno. These days, I tend to get most of my news of the world from Al Jazeera.  I find their reportage fair and balanced!    ;D

I find that post a good summary of the state of American media today.
“Honi soit qui mal y pense”


Click the pic....... Name the car

Offline MG

  • Free Radical
  • *
  • Posts: 1794
  • Country: us
  • Puzzle Points 12
  • Designated Driver
  • YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: The New York Times Sucks
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2007, 08:12:10 PM »
Yup.  Sure is...... :(
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the number of moments that take your breath away!