Tim Blair disposes of the latest New York Times editorial rather handily:
Editorial in the New York Times:
To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
I don’t think we need bother with the other two.
While the New York Times campaigns vigorously in its news and editorial pages in hopes of a re-ascendant Democratic Party, the Washington Times provides coverage of the press itself with an article that appears under the headline, Press pounces on Rove's remarks.
Major news outlets that largely ignored the controversial comments of the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate last week immediately reported on a fiery speech by White House adviser Karl Rove, giving the story front-page prominence and the lead of newscasts.
The news is clearly the subject of the news. The Washington Times article contrasts the non-coverage by media of Senator Richard Durbin likening American military personnel to Nazis and Soviet gulag guards, against the wall to wall coverage of liberal outrage over Karl Rove's speech in which he described their preferred response to 9/11 as favoring indictments, therapy, and understanding for the attackers. Reporter James G. Lakely even went so far as to call on various news organizations asking for comment. First the broadcast media.
"What the networks did was zero, zero, zero, zero on Durbin, and as soon as Rove shows up, boom," said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the conservative Media Research Center. "To say that one deserves zero coverage and the other huge coverage is just bizarre."
Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily, said he's "not sure if the network morning shows even qualify as journalism these days," describing them as "yuk-fests with periodic headline updates tossed into the mix almost as an afterthought."
But he was still puzzled about why CBS, including their evening news program, ignored the Durbin story altogether. "Nothing about Durbin ever, even after the apology," he said. "I'd love to hear how they justify that."
Calls to CBS, ABC and NBC for comment were not returned.
Then the print media.
The Washington Post reported the Democratic outrage over Mr. Rove on its front page yesterday, but Mr. Durbin's remarks never made it there. The newspaper published its first story on the Durbin controversy three days after the speech on page A-11. The story was kept inside for its duration.
The New York Times played the Rove story on page A-16 yesterday, a 776-word bylined story. The newspaper's largest story about Mr. Durbin was 381 words, published inside three days after the firestorm erupted.
New York Times public editor Byron Calame and The Washington Post did not return calls for comment.
Even the White House Press Corps.
The White House press corps also handled both stories dramatically differently. Questions about Mr. Rove dominated the White House press briefing the day after the speech was delivered with spokesman Scott McClellan being peppered with 22 questions on the subject.
A solitary reporter asked for the White House's response to Mr. Durbin's speech -- two days after it was delivered -- and Mr. McClellan was asked about it just two more times.
In view of the continuing anti-American news campaign that includes such highlights as Dan Rather's use of forgeries in his attempt to unseat George W. Bush, baseless claims by Eason Jordan and Linda Foley that American military personnel were "targeting" (in other words murdering) journalists, and the non-reporting of anything that might indicate success in the War on Terror, a more appropriate start to such an editorial would be:
To have the sober conversation about news coverage as America badly needs to do, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:
The news has nothing to do with the truth...
Realistically, one could hardly expect the New York Times to print that. They might be guilty of accuracy. But the good news is, it's not just the bloggers who are fact checking big media and scrutinizing the balance these days. They're checking on each other now.
Comments