How the New York Times Won 2004 for Bush = Illegal Spying on Americans

[L. Coyote]

What with all the torture and war crimes, are Bush's admitted felonies fading away?
Are there just too many scandals to keep up with them all? How many special prosecutors would we need?

=================
How the New York Times Won 2004 for Bush
PROPAGANDISTS FIRST, JOURNALISTS SECOND
May 20 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080520/cm_ucru/propagandistsfirstjournalistssecond


LOS ANGELES--Should the news media be patriotic? When a journalist uncovers a government secret, which comes first--national security or the public's right to know?

In the United States, reporters consider themselves Americans first, journalists second. That means consulting the government before going public with a state secret. "When I was at ABC," James Bamford told Time in 2006, "we always checked with the Administration in power when we thought we had something of concern, and there was usually some way to work it out."

In a new book about the Bush Administration's efforts to expand the president's powers at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, the assumption that the press shouldn't publish security-sensitive stories is so hard-wired that New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau accepts it as a given. But it's a very American concept, and one that relies on the presumption that the U.S. government may make mistakes, but is largely a force for good. In other countries, the relationship between rulers and the press is strictly adversarial.

In "Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice" Lichtblau unwittingly relates a depressing parable--his seeming obliviousness to conflict of interest is a bummer--describing the nation's most prominent newspaper's willingness to keep secrets for government officials, who turn out to be (shocker alert·) lying. ....

............

[L. Coyote]

1. visibility kick

[ThomWV]

2. K&R

[blm]

3. The complicity of corporate media to protect Bush fr2000-2006 has been established in nearly

every story that has emerged in recent years of their relationship with BushInc throughout that timeframe.

And then they had the nerve to turn around and put all blame on Gore then Kerry, and any Democrat who stuck their neck out to oppose BushInc. It was always someone else's fault - never any acknowledgemnt of the media's key and CRUCIAL roles in pushing the lies of BushInc.

[BrklynLib at work]

4. It was durng that campaign that I cancelled my subscription to the NYT.

When they asked me why, I told them because I thought they were a propaganda wepaon for the Bush Administration.

[L. Coyote]

5. Excellent idea. Market forces they do understand.