Howler: Today's NY Times and WP on Ashcroft are a study in contrasts [View All]

[BurtWorm]

Citing Michael Massing's damning critique of the NY Times' Iraq coverage in the latest NY Review of Books, the Daily Howler notes:

MASSING ON WAR: Yesterday afternoon, our entire staff cooled their heels on a jury duty-related assignment. As we sat, we used our time well; we read Michael Massing’s latest critique of the New York Times’ coverage of Iraq. “The Times does show flashes of independent reporting,” he says. But in general—well, let Massing tell it:

MASSING: In general, however, the Times has seemed cautious and complacent. With few exceptions, its editors have purged the front page of any signs of blood or death; reports of US casualties are usually relegated to inside pages, and photos seem selected more for their visual appeal than for what they might reveal about the terrible realities of war.

“The leisureliness of the Times’s coverage is especially apparent when compared to that of its top competitor,” Massing writes. And yes, he means the Washington Post. “When it comes to Iraq,” the scribe judges, “the rivalry between the Times and the Post has become ‘A Tale of Two Papers,’ the one late and lethargic, the other astute and aggressive.”

For what it’s worth, this morning’s editions of the Post and the Times make Massing look like a genius.


Contrast the articles for yourself:

Washington Post: A1, above the fold, cites the Democrats' angry point about Ashcroft's apparent contempt of Congress, actually using the phrase, "contempt of Congress!"

New York Times: Buries the story on A10, makes no reference to the charge of contempt of Congress.