Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
3. How about that time The New York Times lied America into war?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Jun 2016

Trick Question: The New York Times ALWAYS helps lie America into war.



The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.



The Newspaper of War

by Howard Friel
Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 by Common Dreams

Many years ago, Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam, Communist China, and Soviet Russia were saying one thing about what had happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in early August 1964, while President Johnson and top administration officials were all saying the exact opposite. How should the Times have responded to that situation, assuming a commitment to an independent press and an informed citizenry?

Ten years earlier, in July 1954, the governments of Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China all signed the Final Declaration of the Geneva Accord on Vietnam, which formally concluded France’s U.S.-supported colonial war in Vietnam. The United States refused to sign, and thereafter proceeded to undermine the most important stipulation of the accord – that elections to unify the northern and southern zones of Vietnam take place in 1956. By what journalistic criteria should the New York Times have covered this refusal by the Eisenhower administration to sign and comply with the Geneva Accord on Vietnam, which opened the door to the twenty-year American military campaign in Vietnam?

When Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice claimed in 2001-2003 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including an active nuclear weapons program, and when Saddam Hussein denied those claims, what journalistic standard did the Times apply in its response to those conflicting claims?

Journalism schools should teach a course focused on questions like these, given that over the past sixty years the Times and every other mainstream news organization has repeatedly flunked such tests, in each instance aiding the government’s efforts in its illegal interventions and wars.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/13-0



This is the "paper of record" that gave us Judith Miller and aluminum tubes, while failing to mention word that George W Bush's illegal domestic spying operation until after Selection 2004. I also want to emphasize this paper has done all it can to keep up the fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot President John F. Kennedy, who had ordered withdrawal of the U.S. from Vietnam. In addition, this is an important read for those interested in seeing how Corporate McPravda exclusively serves the warmongers and not the People, as intended by the nation's Founders in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
And neither does citing bluenation, dailynewbin or mediamatters NWCorona Jun 2016 #1
Neither does any news source that has something negative to say about HRC. Neither linking to videos insta8er Jun 2016 #2
How about that time The New York Times lied America into war? Octafish Jun 2016 #3
Dunno what that has to do with the post. Didn't mention the NY Times once. ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #6
It's a non sequitur that's supposed to impress you. CorkySt.Clair Jun 2016 #9
Do you think I post to impress? Octafish Jun 2016 #10
Will you be attending the "fart in" in Philly? CorkySt.Clair Jun 2016 #13
Nice comeback. Octafish Jun 2016 #15
Well, you have always impressed me. And with it coming to light that truedelphi Jun 2016 #17
Source? Hekate Jun 2016 #28
You mentioned ''RT'' Octafish Jun 2016 #12
Pro Tip: all MSM has bias GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #4
^KnR^ floppyboo Jun 2016 #7
.that^ 840high Jun 2016 #32
I'm curious. How does your tip become a "Protip?" MineralMan Jun 2016 #5
Anyone who's been here longer than 5 years should be considered a 'pro', perhaps? randome Jun 2016 #21
The term isn't generally intended to indicate expertise. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #23
I regularly alert on RT-sourced threads, and have a pretty good success rate Tarc Jun 2016 #8
I would rather do Russia Today than any David Brockshit connected site, Autumn Jun 2016 #11
"Progressives" using a tyrant's personal propaganda machine realmirage Jun 2016 #14
Ditto: The Observer oberliner Jun 2016 #16
WELL the reality according to the Secretary of State (in Calif's) own web papes - truedelphi Jun 2016 #18
Um, they're always counted. This primary is no different than any other. grossproffit Jun 2016 #19
not at all true. Nearly One million ballots remained uncounted during the GM food truedelphi Jun 2016 #22
Any links for your accusations? ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #25
Counties aren't Congressional districts. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #20
At no point did any official in California state the ballots would not be counted. ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #24
This is what the California SoS site actually says ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #26
"Activists" had nothing to do with it and "flipping" counties means nothing. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #27
Speaking of which, where has Sabrina 1 been lately? randome Jun 2016 #29
I believe she has switched sites. MineralMan Jun 2016 #30
Huh. Thanks. Too bad, though. I'd grown kind of used to her. randome Jun 2016 #31
If she doesn't come back that's one I can take off my ignore list. stevenleser Jun 2016 #35
Yup. Agschmid Jun 2016 #33
Most folks who do that are apologists for war and aggression if it's stevenleser Jun 2016 #34
Banter about what "people" do, does not turn wrongs into a right laserhaas Jun 2016 #36
you guys are HILARIOUS. RT isn't Putin Propaganda. Ed Shultz and Thom Hartmann pdsimdars Jun 2016 #37
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Protip: Citing Russia Tod...»Reply #3