|
|||||
A foolish consistencyEverything you need to know about the fall of a once-great newspaper – tangibly reflected in its declining market share and stock cap - can be found in the difference between the way that the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post dealt with the Scooter Libby trial result. The Post - still holding firmly to a tether to reality – continues a welcome trend of soberly reflecting upon consequences, lamenting the fall from grace of a once-respected public figure while emphasizing the importance of the rule of law:
But the Post went further, looking at the underlying “crime” that generated this investigation, trial and verdict, and admitting that the whole thing rested on a partisan tissue of lies:
The Times, on the other hand, continues to breathe the noxious fumes of its own hopes and fears. Having quicky dispensed with what the jury did say, the paper fantasizes about what they wish it might have said:
What tortured sense of logic allows the editorial page editors to color Wilson’s serial mendacity as the actions of a brave whistleblower, while labeling the adminstration’s effort to rebut his fraud as a “smear” campaign? As the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation proved (pdf), Wilson lied at every step. The administration “assaulted” his credibility because he had none, and it was because his wife worked at CIA that he was chosen for the trip. How can a newspaper – of all institutions – fault the administration for telling the truth? Especially in an Op-Ed that at least ostensibly focuses on the importance of honesty? All of these are incovenient facts which makes the Time’s further histrionics even more absurd – the fact that Guantanamo detainees have not been charged with crimes or afforded counsel is again brought up, but not the fact that enemy prisoners of war do not have to be charged with crimes to be detained – they never have been. Equally revealing is the paper’s dark rumination that what “we still do not know is whether a government official used Ms. Wilson‚Äôs name despite knowing that she worked undercover.” You’d think perhaps that a lack of charges after a thorough two year investigation by a determined Special Prosecutor might at least clue the paper into the possibility that “we still do not know” because no such crime was committed. But no: It would be better to spend the rest of our twilight years trying to prove a negative than for the paper to admit that they had been the willing and eager dupes of a partisan charlatan. The Times would rather continue to be wrong rather – and continue to propagate falsehoods – than admit to having been wrong. This is truly a foolish form of consistency. 12 comments to A foolish consistency |
  |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
No, no, no.
You are missing the point. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson are brave and patriotic Americans because of their INTENT. See, they INTENDED to expose the Bush White House as liars and warmongers. The fact that they had to lie, and fabricate claims in order to do so doesn’t count. We should applaud their efforts because they were able to take down one of the evil Chimpy McHitlerburton crowd. It is only unfortunate that the VP was not forced out of the OEOB in a perp walk.
Seriously, Libby would have been fine if he had just told the investigators that when he “outed” Plame, he knew that she wasn’t in a covert status any more, and therefore the statute didn’t apply. Instead he lied, either intentionally or through omission and screwed himself. In the process he got more mud on the administration. Now he has to pay the piper. Unfortunate, sad, and regretful.
“the most respected newspaper in the world”
? there are medications for those kinds of delusions.
You seem to be refuting your last post on the subject…
Libby lied, he shouldn’t have, everyone agrees. It appears that since he didn’t have to lie, he was, quite literally, “criminally stupid.”
What I’m objecting to is the fact that Wilson also lied – repeatedly – and the NYT refuses to acknowledge that they were the vehicle for his partisan deception. Now they’re trying to conjure up “larger truths” out of the deceipt that they sponsored.
I suppose it would have been impossible for the paper to remain silent on this, but to perpetuate the lie is reprehensible.
You and many here have a propensity to jump all over the NYT at every opportunity. And that is fine, I suppose. It’s your right. Sometimes, to some extent it may be deserved. (And although the Grey Lady has lost some of her former brilliance, I never knew market share and market cap equated to a paper’s quality or integrity.)
But this time lex, you have found a very unlikely ally ?
Fliterman, were you forgetting those fine people that lived in the White House before the Bushes? The ones that brought you File-gate, Travel-gate, Whitewater-gate, and the ever-popular, “it means what I say it means-gate”?
And let’s not even get into the need to investigate the current administration’s firing of some US attorneys, who serve at the President’s discretion, while the Clinton administration fired them ALL with nary an aspersion cast. Where was the NYT then?
I read a half-dozen newspapers each day, as time allows. Some are small-town fishrap, some are big-city and hence of some import, and then there’s the NY Times. If I ever feel that life is going swimmingly, that things are in good shape and there might be a light at the end of the tunnel, all I need do is read the NY Times editorial page to once again show that I am ignorant and in denial.
The NY Times once had a reputation for being the newspaper of record. Based upon my readership of the past 15 years, it is the paper of endless complaining, and their only solution to a problem seems to be throwing more of my money at it. That’s a generalization, of course, but recently I’ve come to think that if the NY Times writes about it in the editorial pages I can safely assume it is much ado about nothing and, God willing and the creek don’t rise, I may leave with my wallet intact.
– Max
Cap’n,
I’ve always held ‘The Washington Post’ is the only newspaper with five (5) pages of comics – 3 for comic strips and 2 for Op/Eds. The New York Times (new motto – ‘The news is what we say it is’) trumps the Post in that ALL of its pages are comics.
BTW, I don’t read either paper.
As much as you tend to disparage Ann Coulter, her column for today is spot on.
Oh, and Filterman, we haven’t had an ethical Democrat Administration since George Washington. Do you REALLY want to dredge up slime?
The NY Times has long ceased to be relevant. It is the bible for the intellectual snobs and chattering classes in the hyper blue city where I live, but I only read a few of the sections (cooking, sports, business). I subscribe to the rag sheet because my wife loves reading it, and it’s not worth a fight.
As a Republican Jew in NYC, I really stand out.
It was Libby, the Vice President?
Web Reconnaissance for 03/08/2007…
A short recon of what?ǂ