37 Comments

1. Skookumchuk:

The New York Times. That’s a newspaper, right? In New York or someplace.

I had breakfast with a group of largely older people who read publications like the one just mentioned and who watch network news but who are not at all familiar with the net. One had heard of the London arrests. None knew of Toronto at all.

Jun 3, 2006 - 3:36 pm 2. Das:

Roger thanks for tracking this. What do you think is the editorial policy behind this withholding of information? Do media elites see Americans as hardcore racists, everready to flame into nightriders when they learn of Muslim youth on the prowl? Do they see themselves as social monitors holding back a tide of bloodletting vengence? Do these elites not realize that withholding information within an industry of information conveyence might damage their revenue stream…? What is going on here?

Jun 3, 2006 - 4:21 pm 3. Barry Dauphin:

Since the NY Times had no trouble investigating Tim McVeigh’s links to Neo-Nazi, anti-government types, so I’m sure they’ll explore all the links of these gentlemen to al Qaeda.

Jun 3, 2006 - 4:46 pm 4. David Thomson:

ìWhat is going on here?î

The corruption of the New York Times did not begin this morning. This nonsense has been occurring for at least the last seven decades. You should read Laurel Leffís ìBuried by The Times: The Holocaust and Americaís Most Important Paper.î The author accuses the Sulzberger family of abandoning the European Jews to the Hitler regime.

Jun 3, 2006 - 6:52 pm 5. vnjagvet:

Had this been a plot uncovered in New York, Philadelphia or Washington, DC, what are the chances that the NYT covers it his way?

How about Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles?

IOW, does it have something to do with the “it didn’t happen here” syndrome?

Or is it truly that these fools think any danger from Islamic Jihadists is merely a Bush/neocon construct?

Jun 3, 2006 - 8:01 pm 6. Bill Faith:

Linked from Canadian bomb plot linked to other countries?

Jun 3, 2006 - 8:15 pm 7. Rick Ballard:

If I had knowingly violated Section 798 and was having dreams of how I’d look in felony orange or wondering what the food was like at Leavenworth, I mught hesitate to allow much coverage of the terrorism angle in an article about breaking up a terror cell using (at least in part) electronic surveillance techniques.

Being an ally of al Queada would also tend to limit negative coverage.

Jun 3, 2006 - 8:28 pm 8. heather:

“Do media elites see Americans as hardcore racists, everready to flame into nightriders when they learn of Muslim youth on the prowl? Do they see themselves as social monitors holding back a tide of bloodletting vengence?”

ABSOLUTELY!! These elites believe they run the country because they are better (smarter, nicer, more stylish, more sensitive, more caring) than the hoi polloi. They are an unelected elite, and are just brimful of merit.

I have a theory about this. One suggestion as to why Saddam hid the WMDs was that he was more afraid of an Iraqi uprising against him than he was of an invasion by the US. However, if we look at the dynamics here, it makes some sort of sense: the Great and Beloved Leader and Father of his Country is terrified of his people – he thinks they are capable of ANYTHING, which is why he knew that they must be controlled at all costs.

Just like our own elites: they truly believe that – if not carefully monitored, us People will riot and string up Muslims from every lamp-post at the least provocation. In their view, the Military, especially, is certain to run amuck at any time (thus the obsessing over Abu Ghraib, and now, jumping all over Haditha) – and, of course, probably has, almost continuously, and Rumsfeld, etc has Covered it Up.

And with Bush in power, the Elites are wringing their hands, knowing that the RedNecks are rampant, uncontrolled, willing and able to do ANYTHING!!!!

Jun 3, 2006 - 8:29 pm 9. dougf:

“And with Bush in power, the Elites are wringing their hands, knowing that the RedNecks are rampant, uncontrolled, willing and able to do ANYTHING!!!!”–Heather

If only. All we do is grind our teeth down to the gum-line and wonder why we are so ill served by our propagandistic media oligarchy.

When is that ANYTHING about to arrive?

Jun 3, 2006 - 8:41 pm 10. chuck:

Just like our own elites: they truly believe that – if not carefully monitored, us People will riot and string up Muslims from every lamp-post at the least provocation.

My own inclination would be to string up the elites first. The other problems would then be much easier to deal with.

Jun 3, 2006 - 8:46 pm 11. Philip Mella:

When putting the NY Times into journalistic context readers should remember Arthur Shulzberger’s recent commencement address at State University of New York, wherein he provided a heartfelt and impassioned apology for his generation’s failure to live up to its obligations. He cites the war in Iraq, presumed malfeasances in civil rights, and a host of other failures.
Therefore, it should surprise no one that every article penned by a Times reporter will be so transparently biased against all things American as to be laughable were it not such a travesty of true media standards.
For the full editorial, please go to http://www.clearcommentary.com.

Jun 3, 2006 - 9:37 pm 12. mikem:

LMAO and then cry. The RCMP states “They represent the broad strata of our community.” (via Malkin)
It will be a real head scratcher trying to find a common factor in such a diverse crowd.

Jun 3, 2006 - 11:03 pm 13. FL666dog:

It is stylish these days to ignore the connections between the Muslim religion and rampant violence. No, I don’t think all Muslims are violent sociopaths. But not truthfully making those connections when they exist makes it easier for Muslims themselves to ignore the hijacking of their religion. I spoke with many Catholics during the height of the coverage of the pedophile priests and church cover-ups. They were all disgusted with their own religious leaders and expressed this anger. It has changed the church’s handling of such cases (although, not enough in my opinion) and there is better oversight, if for no other reason than to protect their reputation. We should all want to pressure the Muslim leaders and hold them accountable. If Islam is truly a religion of peace, prove it. I don’t believe them capable of living equally among other religions. They are too far gone. It is not evough to will good intentions; We have to force them to decide which side they are on.

Jun 4, 2006 - 4:35 am 14. Peter:

I’m not sure if they have changed versions on-line, but it acutally worse now: on the version as of Sunday, 6-4-06, 8am EST, the suspects names are now revealed about 28 paragraphs down, and the possible link to Al Qaeda is even further…over 30 paragraphs down. And they never indicate that all are Muslem. I know I should expect it, but it still is amazing.

Jun 4, 2006 - 4:57 am 15. Terrye:

I wonder how long it will take the stock holders at NYT to demand that the moron running the paper be given early retirement?

This is getting ridiculous. Marines might have done a bad thing and so we beat it to death, before we even have the pertinent facts. Young Muslims attempt to kill scores of their fellow citizens in Canada and golly gee we do not want to be insensitive and callous in our coverage.

Do they really think people are that freaking stupid?

Jun 4, 2006 - 5:20 am 16. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Terrye…NYT has a two-class system for its stock, and the controlling stock, as I understand it, is in the hands of the Sulzberger family. From what I’ve read, it is almost impossible for dissident shareholders to overcome this setup.

However, if NYT drives itself into an actual Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then most likely the bondholders will take control of the company, and will be able to change out the management.

Jun 4, 2006 - 5:40 am 17. Terrye:

photo:

I see. I know the stock value has gone down but I guess that means that it can go way down before things really change.

Jun 4, 2006 - 5:48 am 18. GreenDroll:

The NYT ran many articles in the 1930’s glowingly describing the Soviet Union as a ‘workers paradise’ and extolling the virtues of Stalin and socialism. This was while they should of known (they probably did know) that millions of Russians were dying in state induced famine, relocation programs, and outright mass murder. The paper hasn’t improved its’ objectivity since then.
Anyone who works at the NYT should have their degree in journalism revoked. It is not a newspaper, it is an editorial propaganda outlet.

Jun 4, 2006 - 6:32 am 19. Rick Ballard:

Photon,

I doubt that actual bankruptcy is in the cards. Moody’s has already reduced the debt rating to reflect quality of operations – and product. Lots of companies stagger on, paying interest on junk debt while providing junk product. The margins in the business preclude bankruptcy any time soon but I must say that the average intelligence of the Sulzberger family must have dropped quite a bit below the mean – that or every Sulzberger shares Arthur Jr.’s ability to receive indoctrination.

If they fired Arthur Jr., someone with a bare modicum of skill could restore the papers status so that it could once again stand alongside the National Enquirer as an equal.

Don’t forget – their target market niche has money but not much common intelligence – an advertisers dream. Junior will be able to indulge his rich fantasy life for quite some time – he should be able to knock another billion or two off of shareholders value quite easily. After all, he’s done it already.

Jun 4, 2006 - 7:07 am 20. nofreelunch:

If the NYT wants to be factual they should change the motto to read “All the news that fits our agenda, we print.”

Jun 4, 2006 - 7:38 am 21. john jay:

Since 9/11, the NYTimes has worked very hard to improve the image of Muslims. I found this very confusing for a long time. Unlike their reporting of Communism, it is impossible to accept that the editors of the NYTimes believe fundamentalist Islam to be preferable to their culture. I also don’t believe that all of the liberal papers have been bribed by wealthy Muslims to write pro-Islamic pieces (I guess it is conceivable that this could be, but I’d need a lot of proof). So, how did a paper published in New York City of all places emerge from the ruins of 9/11 so consistently pro-Islamic?

I realized that much NYTimes reporting on terrorism exposes a conflict between two of the doctrines of liberal reporting.
1. When the United States goes to war to protect it’s own interests, the other side is given ‘victim’ status. This derives from the vestigial liberal idea that any action by the United States in it’s own interests in inherently evil (because one Communist victory of the Cold War was to ingrain in the Left a reflexive belief that the interests of the US are evil). And in a simplistic narrative the people resisting to such US action must be intrinsically good. If they are savage, they are noble savages.
2. Reporting about ‘victim’ class people must be done in such a way as to improve the lot of said victims. That is, if the people are doing something the average American would consider good, trumpet their status throughout the piece. If the people are doing something that would outrage the average American, hide their status as much as possible. Ignore it or, if unavoidably part of the story, bury it at the end or mention it in passing. Example of people given this sort of preferential treatment: illegal immigrants; young, black, inner-city men; Palestinians

The problem with the War on Terror a.k.a., the War on Islamic Extremism, is that these two principles conflict directly with each other every day. And so the NYTimes constantly plays down the religion of the people caught plotting against the West. It is ridiculous and exposes the foolishness of trying to force the news to fit the traditional liberal framework, rather than simply reporting it.

Jun 4, 2006 - 8:07 am 22. Roger:

john jay, bravo!

Jun 4, 2006 - 8:51 am 23. ag1:

************** quote **************
And with Bush in power, the Elites are wringing their hands, knowing that the RedNecks are rampant, uncontrolled, willing and able to do ANYTHING!!!!

************* end quote ************

Why do you think that Bush is disagreeing with “Elites”? He is part of it. Just look at his handling of border security. And please observe that there were no changes from Clinton’s policies during Bush admin. before 911.

Jun 4, 2006 - 9:40 am 24. Ari Tai:

Wretchard’s post this morning has some relevent discussion, including “is the use of the MSM by the Jihadis off-limits?”

Note that Mr. Rumsfeld has not been shy about bringing up the topic (of the MSM being unable to defend itself against being a tool of the jihadis). Many others have been having the same conversation. It’s been pretty clear (irrespective of any polls other than those that count) where the American “center” is at (and in terms of Rumsfeld’s faith in it). And most appear to know too well just how easy it is to blackmail the MSM (be it Saadam and CNN or their inability to deal with a few cartoons).

What is an appropriate response and tactic? Especially if the majority of the populace (and voters) seem to see through the enemy’s (ab)use of the MSM and their biases?

If the West spoke with one voice about terror (as we did in past eras about slavery and piracy), would it save lives? Whose? Should we care that most of the lives saved would be jihadis, their (non-western) victims, and would-be jihadis? Is the Left so blind they don’t realize who they are killing, or is their nature (and a bit of racism, aka self-hatred) showing through?

We (the West) have been doing much better of late at denying the fascists the use of our tools that they can not build for themselves (banks, telephony, internet, etc.). Do we care enough to find a way to separate our “in the family” arguments from the discordance that gives hope to the fascists? In the old days the arguments used to stop at the sea (and later in outer door of NATA). All would stand behind the leader of the moment, be it a Truman or Eisenhower, irrespective of their major (and otherwise fought to the death) policy differences. Granted, many on the Left think of themselves as citizens-of-the-world and appear to embrace the anarchy that this implies.

I’d wager the Left just doesn’t see it (the blood on their hands). They’ve yet to admit their culpability for the 100 million untimely and often horrible deaths due to communism (to say nothing of the waste of the efforts several billion lives spent in unproductive efforts, rather than improving all of our well-being – the difference between free-markets w/ individual liberty & choice and central-planning w/ its implicit slavery).

Jun 4, 2006 - 9:55 am 25. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

Shush! If we don’t say the words that means there is no problem. Their homegrown,HOMEGROWN! Their citizens, just like you and me. It’s one thing to call Jews controlled by the Zionist entity slaves of the Israeli lobby, I mean that is obvious, but this is another kettle of fish. Far too sensitive, it gets sticky if you get too accurate with names or religions. Emphasize homegrown, that way it is a problem with America and Canada, not those other two words that start with M or I. Those letters should be noted from now on as the letters that should not be mentioned so that the words that begin with those not to be mentioned letters are never, never, never, never, mentioned. Remember, we did a good job of not using genocide in regards to Rwanda so we didn’t have to face reality. We must keep the discussion civil, those, you know(unmentionables) just distract the rable and keep them from being nuanced and sophisticated. Shut up! They will go away if we ignore them.

Jun 4, 2006 - 1:49 pm 26. Jim C.:

heather wrote: “Just like our own elites: they truly believe that – if not carefully monitored, us People will riot and string up Muslims from every lamp-post at the least provocation. In their view, the Military, especially, is certain to run amuck at any time (thus the obsessing over Abu Ghraib, and now, jumping all over Haditha) – and, of course, probably has, almost continuously, and Rumsfeld, etc has Covered it Up.”

You know, I’m beginning to believe that that’s not so. I think it’s a deliberate scare tactic, in our case to balkanize and divide the country so it becomes a basket case like Europe, hasten the left’s return to power, and just generally screw the USA and the whole of Western Civilization.

Jun 4, 2006 - 2:41 pm 27. zefal:

Some see the glass as being half empty, I like to see the positive side and see the glass as being half full. How is the glass half full? At least they didn’t “mistakenly” identify them as being Republicans. Ok maybe that’s just being eyedropper full.

Jun 4, 2006 - 3:19 pm 28. GreenDroll:

If I was a death squad leader in Iraq, I would be herding children, old people, and pregnant women in front of every suicide bomber or attack squad I could muster. I would have the cutest kids I could find playing ‘toss the goat shit’ over every IED I had in the ground. And I would certainly provide all the footage I could to CNN if any of them were fired upon.

I guess Americans (and the MSM) think that IED’s are just tossed out of cars like empty beer bottles. IED’s require some digging, some set-up, and the cooperation (willing or not) of those in the neighborhood to not reveal the presence of the weapon or it’s observers. This brings the complicity of those whose front yard is used for the purpose of planting a rigged explosive into question. If I lived in Iraq, and was as familiar with the intimidation tactics of the death squads as I am from the comfort of my safe home in the US, I would certainly keep my mouth shut and take my chances with the tender mercies of the US forces.

No one seems to remember the Algerian ‘War of Independence’ from France in the 1960’s where these style tactics were exploited to maximum effect. There was an excellent movie made about this conflict (it was left wing, but would be viewed differently today) but I’ll bet it is very hard to come by. It was standard fare on campus in the late sixties as an anti Viet-Nam film.

Jun 4, 2006 - 7:06 pm 29. CapitalistKerry:

Das, Heather, John Jay and Ari Tai

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, I appreciate the quality. I believe that together you address almost all the intertwined elements of the Leftists dementia and loathing for their own culture:

A pervasive distrust and suspicion of the American people tantamount to prejudice that the mob (i.e. not liberal elites) MUST be controlled to avoid chaos which is defined as them NOT in control;

A victim status to all US enemies because any action by the US in its own interests is evil and the US is more powerful than its enemies;

An inability to see, whether willful or not, the evil in our enemies or Leftist complicity in millions of destroyed or wasted lives.

However, in addition, these elements allow the Left to indulge in unrestrained Bush Derangement Syndrome. That is, these elements excuse in their own minds the otherwise despicable position (even to them) that no matter the harm to the United States, say, do, print, ANYTHING under ALL circumstances – even Section 798 violations – that undermine the Bush administration and its policies.

If the attackers were identified clearly, in the lede, as Al Qaeda inspired or aligned terrorists, it might make people think Maybe the war is real and there is an enemy determined to kill us. Maybe it was right to take the fight to them on their own ground. Maybe even NSA foreign surveillance is justified and necessary and NYT is criminally liable! Given these possibilities, how else could the execrable NYT write the story.

Jun 4, 2006 - 8:56 pm 30. Syl:

Test

Jun 4, 2006 - 9:09 pm 31. Gary Rosen:

I actually went to high school with Sulzberger – a private school in Connecticut. I was not really acquainted with him though I have a vague memory of playing on an intramural sports team with him. I remember thinking it strange that someone from a powerful and influential family like the Sulzbergers was such a nonentity. He was there only a year I think; he either tranferred or flunked out.

If Sulzberger hadn’t inherited his job he probably wouldn’t have gotten as far in journalism as Jimmy Olsen. Most of the major newspapers, in fact, are in the hands of family dynasties. The founders were self-made men and some of the papers used to be quite right-wing (e. g. LA Times and Chicago Tribune). But now they are into three or four generations of scions who have never had to work a real job in their life, which goes a long way towards explaining the self-flagellating liberalism.

Jun 4, 2006 - 10:14 pm 32. HA:

Roger,

I’ve noticed a pattern lately of leftist commentators asserting that America “needs to have an enemy.” That’s BS of course. America has enemies whether we want them or not.

But what I think is more accurate is the left’s desperate need for America NOT to have enemies. Because if America does have enemies, then the left would have to choose. They would either be compelled to rise to America’s defense, or they would reveal themselves as anti-American Marxists.

They cannot defend America because it is anathema to everthing they believe in. And they cannot reveal their beliefs without mortally wounding their agenda. So they deny, deny, deny, that America has enemies. Desperately.

Jun 5, 2006 - 4:21 am 33. markus:

HA — “The Left…would reveal themselves as anti-American Marxists.”

I’ve never understood your fixation on so-called “Marxists”, HA, and your conflation of anti-Americanism with Marxism.

After all, if “pro-American” means sovereignty-shredding world trade agreements, big government nation-building/social engineering prokects in places Iraq, and military action to defend an ally against a regime that threatens to wipe it out, you can find a bunch of “Marxists” willing to go along with these things. For example, Norm Geras, Christopher Hitchens, surviving “Scoop Jackson” Dems at SDUSA and the AFL-CIO, Thomas Friedman, etc. Also for example, me, until many months after March 2003.

Meanwhile, the real hard-core red, white and blue anti-Marxists — the libertarians and the paleo right — tends to have the same foreign policy agenda that you despise when it comes from the isolationist left.

All this is to say: Marxism is completely irrelevant in 2006.

Jun 5, 2006 - 8:54 am 34. HA:

Markus,

Irrelevant? You’re blind. Marxism of the Gramscian variety dominates Western Civilization. Europe, the UK and Canada are governed by its principles. And the Democrats are evenly split between Gramscians and real Americans. Gramscians dominate our opinion forming institutions – media organizations, universities and Hollywood. They’re conciously destroying Western Civilization and tearing America apart.

Marxists are a far greater threat to America and Western Civilization than Al Qaeda could ever dream. Without the Marxist fifth column, Al Qaeda would be nothing but a bunch of primitive savages, easily dealth with. Marxists are Al Qaeda’s force multipliers.

It is the Marxist editors at the NY Times are suppressing information about Islamic terrorists. They do it because they share a common enemy.

Jun 6, 2006 - 3:32 am 35. Oreb:

GreenDroll:
I was surprised to find “The Battle of Algiers” in my local library (and on DVD, too.) I think this is the one you have in mind. I seem to recall reading that it is on the curriculum at the Pentagon, or War College, or some such place.

IMDb
Wikipedia

Jun 6, 2006 - 11:18 am 36. Oreb:

Retry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/

Jun 6, 2006 - 11:21 am 37. garytheyoung:

Just like our own elites: they truly believe that – if not carefully monitored, us People will riot and string up Muslims from every lamp-post at the least provocation.

Well maybe, if there’s still time after we finish stringing up all the elites. There are just so many hours in the day.

Jun 6, 2006 - 4:11 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: