[iwar] [fc:New.York.Times.under.fire.over.stance.on.Iraq]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-08-25 22:05:54


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5245-1030338332-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8070 invoked by uid 510); 26 Aug 2002 05:03:46 -0000
Received: from n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.82) by all.net with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 05:03:46 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5245-1030338332-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Aug 2002 05:05:32 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 26 Aug 2002 05:05:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 52385 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 05:05:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2002 05:05:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 05:05:31 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7Q55sx25846 for iwar@onelist.com; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:05:54 -0700
Message-Id: <200208260505.g7Q55sx25846@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:New.York.Times.under.fire.over.stance.on.Iraq]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 

New York Times under fire over stance on Iraq
By Stephen Robinson in Washington
(Filed: 24/08/2002)

Leading hawks in Washington who back a military attack on Iraq have turned
their guns on the New York Times, charging that America's most influential
newspaper is deliberately distorting its news coverage to undermine the case
for war.

There have been rumblings of concern within the Bush administration and
rival sections of the press for some weeks, but the dismay has broken into
the open with some trenchant criticism this week of alleged appeasement of
Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times, reflecting the views of its predominantly liberal,
metropolitan readership and editorial staff, has long been hostile to the
Bush administration and to Mr Bush's presidential candidacy in 2000, with
its leaders and star columnists almost unanimously hostile - and frequently
scathing - about him and his circle.

But the charge is now more serious that the paper's news columns have been
turned into propaganda instruments of the anti-war party.

Comments sceptical about the use of military force by once powerful
Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, who served the first president Bush as
national security adviser, have been highlighted with front page treatment,
even though Mr Scowcroft has been out of the public eye for many years.

Last week the paper gave prominence to a report that the Republican Party
was splitting over Iraqi policy, partly based on a highly selective
interpretation of comments by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of
state.

The New York Times seized on some of Dr Kissinger's caveats to suggest he
opposed an American attack, when in fact he had declared there to be "an
imperative for preemptive action" against Saddam Hussein.

Other recent news stories have sounded the alarm that a war could wreck the
American economy, while a selection of interviews with members of the public
appeared skewed to suggest almost no Americans support military action,
which is sharply at odds with opinion poll data.

Another story reminded readers that Washington sided with Baghdad during the
Iran-Iraq war, which would not have surprised many readers as it was common
knowledge at the time.

Charles Krauthammer, a hawkish commentator in the Washington Post,
thundered: "Not since William Randolph Hearst famously cabled his
correspondent in Cuba and declared, 'You furnish the pictures and I'll
furnish the war', has a newspaper so blatantly devoted its front page to
editorialising about a coming American war."

By convention, American newspapers have opinionated editorial pages while
the news pages are supposed to be "objective", though in practice most big
city newspapers reflect a faint liberal bias.

Critics blame the editor, Howell Raines, a southern liberal who took over a
year ago after running the opinion pages and now seems to be changing the
whole paper's outlook.

The Bush administration loathes the paper, as was obvious during the 2000
campaign when Mr Bush was caught on microphone referring to a well-known New
York Times reporter as "a major league asshole", a slip which seemingly did
him no harm with the public.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT