Everything 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:
Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense. Mr. Libby’s conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.
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:
Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had “twisted,” if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false — and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame’s name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.
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:
(Libby)¬†appears to have been trying to cover up a smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that President Bush used to justify invading Iraq…
In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote in an Op-Ed article in The Times that what he had found did not support (the SOTU “16 words”) claim. The specter of a nuclear-armed Iraq was central to Mr. Bush‚Äôs case for rushing to war. So, the trial testimony showed, Mr. Cheney orchestrated an assault on Mr. Wilson‚Äôs credibility with the help of Mr. Libby and others. They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson‚Äôs wife worked at the C.I.A. and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip.
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 responses so far ↓
1
Alen
// Mar 7, 2007 at 12:39 pm
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.
2
doorkeeper
// Mar 7, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“the most respected newspaper in the world”
? there are medications for those kinds of delusions.
3
Babs
// Mar 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm
You seem to be refuting your last post on the subject…
4
lex
// Mar 7, 2007 at 2:14 pm
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.
5
fliterman
// Mar 7, 2007 at 7:55 pm
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 ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú The WaPo and its editorial. Indeed, this editorial was somewhat out of character for the Post. And the Post’s faithful readers are really taking the paper to task for this slanted editorial, as can be seen by their online readers comments here.
Their readers’ critique of this unusually biased editorial relieves me of my own.
This entire issue ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú the Libby/Wilson/Plame/Rove/Cheney/CIA/leaks/national security/casus belli ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú has been far too politicized on both sides to be discussed intelligently. And while you may want to focus on Wilson’s alleged lies, may I point out that it was in fact Libby, not Wilson who lied under oath.
It was Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff that actually perjured himself and was convicted on four felony counts . . . and not Wilson.
And why would a vastly experienced and erudite Washington lawyer perjure himself? His own defense attorney during the trial offered the motive ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Libby was the willing “fall-guy” for “others”. Other potential felons one wonders? We will never know.
Not since the Nixon Administration ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú whom I voted for and still admire for some of his accomplishments ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú have I seen such a consistent and effective program of “dirty tricks” used against political enemies from the highest levels of the Administration. Libby was indeed the fall guy for others who will go Scot-free.
There is indeed a certain consistency in all the major media, not just the Times. Readers expect it. And one normally can guess the usual political slant whether they pick up a WSJ, WaPo, or NY Post. But not always. There are surprises in every one occasionally, as there should be. Papers and people see news differently. Today you have used the WaPo editorial to pillory the NYT. Tomorrow, maybe you will use the NY Post to skewer the WSJ. . . . Then again, probably not.
At least there is one thing we can count on. We can count on the consistency of your opinion regarding the NYT.
6
Byron Audler
// Mar 7, 2007 at 8:02 pm
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”?
7
The Owner's Manual
// Mar 7, 2007 at 9:09 pm
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?
8
Max Damage
// Mar 7, 2007 at 10:07 pm
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
9
Seniord
// Mar 8, 2007 at 5:03 am
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?
10
RPL
// Mar 8, 2007 at 5:20 am
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.
11
Daveg
// Mar 8, 2007 at 7:16 am
It was Libby, the Vice President?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Chief of Staff that actually perjured himself and was convicted on four felony counts . . . and not Wilson.
Which is why Libby will now, absent a successful appeal or Presidential pardon, pay his due.
When will Wilson be held accountable for his “Lie Heard ‘Round the World?” Wilson’s series of lies had the unfortunate trait of being easily distilled down to the pithy bumper-sticker political message “Bush Lied,” a message easily understood and internalized by a facile, TV-addicted, short attention span electorate. This meme was a major player in eroding public support for a military action that was 12 years overdue and so well justified that over a dozen justifications, any one of which was sufficient cause in and of itself, had to be willfully ignored to allow Wilson’s lies about Niger to become the be all and end all of the entire war. And even with that, one has to completely ignore the inconvenient findings of the 9/11 commission which found, and very clearly stated, that Wilson was a serial liar.
If, as you state, you are tired of “dirty tricks,” when will you hold Colin Powell and Dick Armitage accountable for withholding evidence that would have avoided the multi-million dollar, years long witch hunt? Well, not until “Wilson Lied, Armitage Denied, They Should All Be Fried” can be printed legibly on a bumper sticker, I suppose.
And let’s not even get started on Sandy Berger.
12 The Thunder Run // Mar 8, 2007 at 10:23 am
Web Reconnaissance for 03/08/2007…
A short recon of what?Ç‚Äôs out there that might draw your attention….
Leave a Comment