The New York Times Leads Sleazy Smear Campaign Against Julian Assange

[Panaconda]

Yesterday, Assange walked out of an interview with CNN, which he thought had been arranged to discuss the significance of the Iraq War revelations, because the CNN "reporter" seemed interested in asking only about petty, vapid rumors about Assange himself, not the substance of the leaks. The Nation's Greg Mitchell summarized that interview this way: "Assange to CNN: 'Do you want to talk about deaths of 104,000 people or my personal life?'" CNN's answer could not have been clearer: the latter, definitely.

But the low point of this smear campaign was led by The New York Times' John Burns, who authored a sleazy hit piece on Assange -- filled with every tawdry, scurrilous tabloid rumor about him -- that was (and still is) prominently featured in the NYT, competing for attention with the stories about the leaked documents themselves, and often receiving more attention. Here's the current iteration of the front page of the NYT website, with the Assange story receiving top billing:



It shouldn't be surprising that Burns is filling the role played in 1971 by Henry Kissinger and John Ehrichman. His courageous and high-quality war reporting from Iraq notwithstanding, it's long been clear from his U.S.-glorifying accounts that Burns was one of the media's most enthusiastic supporters of the occupation of Iraq. That's why even the NYT-hating necons regularly lavished him (along with Judy Miller's partner, Michael Gordon) with uncharacteristic praise (National Review's Michael Ledeen: "Rich and I share an admiration for Michael Gordon, one of three (along with Burns and Filkens) NYT reporters who really work hard to get the Iraqi story right"). To justify and excuse his and his media colleagues' gullibility about Iraq, Burns wrote two months ago -- falsely -- that "there were few, if any, who foresaw the extent of the violence that would follow or the political convulsion it would cause in Iraq, America and elsewhere" and that "e could not know then, though if we had been wiser we might have guessed, the scale of the toll the invasion would unleash."

The Iraq War is John Burns' war, and for the crime of making that war look bad, Julian Assange must have his character smeared and his psychiatric health maligned. Burns -- along with his co-writer Ravi Somaiya -- is happy to viciously perform that function...

...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/24-10

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Burns is a blood-soaked piece of shit

The NYT? Who believes anything they print these days?

[Panaconda]

2. Some here were defending the NY Times War Criminality just yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9376096

[Rageneau]

3. Without the NYT, Clinton would have got away with Whitewater

But thanks the their vigilence, the President and the entire nation were subjected to a zillion-dollar, life-destroying, six-year witch hunt.

The Times sometimes accidentally gets one right, but most of the time, they are Wingnut Central

[maryf]

4. k&R

of course this "scandal" is a distraction from the real scandals...

[sabrina 1]

5. Their job is to keep the American people ignorant. But

it isn't working. No one is buying it anymore.

The NYT allowed Judith Miller to help drag this country into war based on lies. They published her every piece of lying propaganda. She, as we now know, was a 'media contact' for the Rendon Group, the firm hired by the U.S. Government at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, to sell the War to the American people.

When a major news organization has a prominent reporter on the list of a PR firm hired to sell a war and she is fed the propaganda they went to get out, which is then published by the news organization, they lose credibility completely.

I don't think anyone trusts the NYT anymore. Even if I read something there that may be true, I always look for other sources to back it up.

On one of the UTube videos of Assange walking out on that reporter, every single comment agrees with him and slams the reporter.

People are not as naive as they were when all this lying began.

[Rex]

6. The usual, 'throw in a dead hooker and see if it sticks' act ain't working.

Pro govt rah rah rags suck the donkeys ass.

[kgnu_fan]

7. You know, New York Times is dead. I have given up on it. They are dead.