New York Daily News source believes senior White House official has flipped in leak c

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

So are you suggesting that in order for a paper to NOT be an embarrassment, it must have a liberal bias?

No, I'm suggesting that a mainstream news source must have no bias in order not to become an embarrassment. The editorials can be as left-wing or right-wing as possible, but once that seeps into the reporting, that's it. You don't seem capable of grasping the fact that the NYT abhorred their label of being a "liberal paper" and felt robbed of any credibility, so to turn things around, they used 9/11 to transform the paper. They did this by giving Miller free reign, even after numerous colleagues pleaded with the editors that her reporting was disgusting. Or who can forget the famous "I'm Convinced" editorial after Powell's speech at the UN? That paper is so deeply involved with this administration that it will never recover.

[dissention]

Judy Miller's Reporting: A Cancer on the New York Times?
by Arianna Huffington
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann...g-_b_9055.html
10.17.2005
(Go to link for the actual links to the letters and stories she mentions)

Signs of trouble and Judy Miller were like Mary and her little lamb. Everywhere that Judy went, a flashing warning sign was sure to follow.

Indeed, in looking back on her career, it's clear that there were more red flags popping up around Judy Miller's work as a journalist than at a May Day parade in Red Square.

We now know that Miller's bosses were being warned about serious credibility problems with her reporting as far back as 2000 -- a warning that came from a Pulitzer Prize-winning colleague of Miller who was so disturbed by her journalistic methods he took the extraordinary step of writing a warning memo to his editors and then asked that his byline not appear on an article they had both worked on.

In today's WaPo, Howard Kurtz quotes from a December 2000 memo sent by Craig Pyes, a two time Pulitzer winner who had worked with Miller on a series of Times stories on al-Qaeda.

"I'm not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller... I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her. . . . She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies," and "tried to stampede it into the paper."

It's the journalistic equivalent of Dean telling Nixon that Watergate was "a cancer on the presidency." But while the Times corrected the specific stories Pyes was concerned about, the paper, like Nixon, ignored the long-term diagnosis. And, of course, the very same issues Pyes raised in 2000 -- Miller's questionable judgment, her advocacy, her willingness to take dictation from government sources -- were the ones that reappeared in Miller's pre-war "reporting" on Saddam's WMD.

And Pyes wasn't the only one at the Times raising concerns about Miller's reporting. As Roger Cohen, who was foreign editor at the time of Miller's WMD reporting, put it in Sunday's article: "I told her there was unease, discomfort, unhappiness over some of the coverage." And as has been reported by New York Magazine's Franklin Foer, Cohen did not express his concerns only to Miller: "During the run-up to the war, investigations editor Doug Franz and foreign editor Roger Cohen went to managing editor Gerald Boyd on several occasions with concerns about Miller's over-reliance on Chalabi and his Pentagon champions... But Raines and Boyd continually reaffirmed management's faith in her by putting her stories on page 1." (So, as Eric Altermann points out, the neocons got their Manchurian Reporter.)

Franz and Cohen's visits (piled on top of the Pyes memo) are eerily reminiscent of the email Jon Landman sent regarding Jayson Blair, in which he wrote "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." Here it was a number of respected journalists all but pleading: "We have to stop Judy from reporting for the Times. Right now."

But, instead, Miller was allowed to keep doing pretty much whatever she pleased. In fact, as a journalistic insider told me: "Howell Raines was thrilled with Judy's WMD coverage, however credulous, because it allowed the Times to slough off the liberal label and present themselves as born again tough hawks -- perfect for the post-9/11 zeitgeist." That was Raines. What was Keller's excuse?

Because perhaps the most damning admission in the Times' quasi-self-examination was Keller's pathetic claim that, despite being removed from her WMD beat, Miller "kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm." "Kept kind of drifting on her own"? When did the Times stop being edited?

So Miller was very questionable goods. And everyone knew it. Yet this is the person they chose to rally behind, body and soul. And reputation.

The Times is in the midst of severe cutbacks, laying off 200 workers earlier in the year, with another 500 to come. "The paper is cracking down on expenses to such an extent," a Times staffer told me, "all travel now has to be approved by an editor. Used to be, if a story broke, a national correspondent could just book a flight and go -- and not have to wait six hours to get the trip approved. Now you need to have the agreement of an editor saying, 'Yes, this story is worth spending the money on, go'. That's a very big change for the New York Times. Yet the paper's management chose to spend millions of dollars in legal fees defending Judy Miller."

It's an utter disgrace, and an integral part of the paper's disastrous WMD coverage, which is without a doubt the blackest mark in the paper's long history.

And yet, even after all that we've learned, the Judy-ites continue to defend her.

"Judy has always been a pioneer and an agent of change." That was Tom Friedman on CNN. Yesterday. Hadn't he read his paper's story and Judy's laughable companion piece? Or maybe by "agent of change" he meant someone who has changed the culture of integrity at the Times to its polar opposite.

Tom Friedman -- and anyone else still hanging out at Camp Judy (I notice we haven't heard from Lou Dobbs or Tom Brokaw since the Judy-culpa came out) -- really need to update their talking points. Maybe they can all chip in and get a group rate on a good rewrite man. I suggest looking for a writer with a background in novels -- because trying to present Judy as anything even remotely resembling a journalist will now require someone very adept at crafting fiction.

CrooksandLiars has a good clip of her on CNN this past Sunday talking about the Times' ridiculous puff piece in Sunday's edition.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, I'm suggesting that a mainstream news source must have no bias in order not to become an embarrassment. The editorials can be as left-wing or right-wing as possible, but once that seeps into the reporting, that's it. You don't seem capable of grasping the fact that the NYT abhorred their label of being a "liberal paper" and felt robbed of any credibility, so to turn things around, they used 9/11 to transform the paper. They did this by giving Miller free reign, even after numerous colleagues pleaded with the editors that her reporting was disgusting. Or who can forget the famous "I'm Convinced" editorial after Powell's speech at the UN? That paper is so deeply involved with this administration that it will never recover.

Are you getting all of this supposed conservative "bias" from the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media". Good God I hope not!

Let's count some of the liberals on board. We have A. O. Scott, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert. And how can one forget the liberal darling Maureen Dowd?

Riccardo Puglisi wrote a paper, "Being the New York Times: The Political Behavior of a Newspaper", on this very subject actually. He shows the very liberal bias of this paper. For example, during presidential campaigns, the paper systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics (civil rights, health care, labor, social welfare).

Also, head over to lexis-nexis and enter in "New York Times Right-Wing" and see how many hits you get. And then enter in "New York Times Left-Wing" and see how many hits you get.

[SuzeQuze]

So Diss, the Times did a puff piece on themselves? Good grief!

[dissention]

Your arguments get sillier with time.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Are you getting all of this supposed conservative "bias" from the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media". Good God I hope not!

Yup, sillier and sillier.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Let's count some of the liberals on board. We have A. O. Scott

A movie critic.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Frank Rich

A theater critic and op-ed columnist.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Paul Krugman

An op-ed columnist.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Bob Herbert

An op-ed columnist.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

And how can one forget the liberal darling Maureen Dowd?

Yikes, another op-ed columnist.

Is that the best you can do; supply me with a list of people paid for their syndicated opinion pieces (who are then balanced out by the syndicated conservative op-ed columnists), not their reporting, and a lone movie critic? Crikey, you have no argument. Stop copying and pasting silly lists from the Free Republic.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Riccardo Puglisi wrote a paper, "Being the New York Times: The Political Behavior of a Newspaper", on this very subject actually. He shows the very liberal bias of this paper. For example, during presidential campaigns, the paper systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics (civil rights, health care, labor, social welfare).

That paper of his has been debunked quite effectively.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Also, head over to lexis-nexis and enter in "New York Times Right-Wing" and see how many hits you get. And then enter in "New York Times Left-Wing" and see how many hits you get.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

So Diss, the Times did a puff piece on themselves? Good grief!

Oh my, I read it in absolute disgust and came away with nothing but disdain for them. I'll post it for you.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

No, all I ask is that they report THE NEWS!

My dear, Im afraid--from the sound of the way things are ramping up--you're not going to be liking the NEWS very much

[dissention]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

So Diss, the Times did a puff piece on themselves? Good grief!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/na...tml?oref=login
The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal
By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ADAM LIPTAK and CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: October 16, 2005

And here's her revolting piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/na.../16miller.html
My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: October 16, 2005

If you aren't registered, just paste the urls into http://www.bugmenot.com and they'll give you instant log-in info.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

Your arguments get sillier with time.

Coming from you...Thank you.

A movie critic.



A theater critic and op-ed columnist.



An op-ed columnist.



An op-ed columnist.



Yikes, another op-ed columnist.

Is that the best you can do; supply me with a list of people paid for their syndicated opinion pieces (who are then balanced out by the syndicated conservative op-ed columnists), not their reporting, and a lone movie critic? Crikey, you have no argument. Stop copying and pasting silly lists from the Free Republic.

I am by no means a Free Republic member or poster. Thanks for assuming that I don't have enough knowledge to argue for myself.

The fact is there are more LIBERAL Op-Ed columnist than there are conservatives or even centrists for that matter!

Neat little factoid Joshy,

Additionally, The New York Times editorial page has not endorsed a Republican Party candidate for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956

You ever hear of Daniel Okrent? He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.He also noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.

Since the invasion in Iraq, the Times has almost always referred to "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" being responsible for the bombing and other acts of violence.

That's all your going to do...laugh? Oh wait..

Bless your little heart. You don't know how to use Lexis-Nexis do you?

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by dissention

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/na...tml?oref=login
The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal
By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ADAM LIPTAK and CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: October 16, 2005

And here's her revolting piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/na.../16miller.html
My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: October 16, 2005

If you aren't registered, just paste the urls into http://www.bugmenot.com and they'll give you instant log-in info.

She just has no credibility, I can't even finish. She almost says Libby said it was Plame but then he didn't. What the hell does that mean? Her statements are very convoluted.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

She just has no credibility, I can't even finish. She almost says Libby said it was Plame but then he didn't. What the hell does that mean? Her statements are very convoluted.

She said it's not Libby who told her Plame's identity, and then she says she doesn't remember who told her.

I've never read anything more incredulous in my life.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

She just has no credibility, I can't even finish. She almost says Libby said it was Plame but then he didn't. What the hell does that mean? Her statements are very convoluted.

It means she is a bought and paid for lying cu*t - that is what it mean

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It means she is a bought and paid for lying cu*t - that is what it mean

Precisely. I mean, I think I read that she said Libby told her Wilson's wife was involved in the CIA but he did not tell her Plame's name. But the name is in her notebook? And just because Libby didn't say her proper name that doesn't mean he did not out her. Saying "Wilson's wife is in the CIA" is virtually the same as saying, "Plame is in the CIA". It just takes a little research to uncover the latter, more specific information. Its very clear she's lying and the NYT should be ashamed of themselves for continuing her employment. They're just whoring this out to sell papers. Its really pathetic.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

The fact is there are more LIBERAL Op-Ed columnist than there are conservatives or even centrists for that matter!

Oh, really? Give me some numbers, then.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Neat little factoid Joshy,

Additionally, The New York Times editorial page has not endorsed a Republican Party candidate for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956

Once again, there's a marked difference between the editorial opinions and the reporting. You can't seem to grasp that.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

You ever hear of Daniel Okrent?

Most definitely; he's quite the cracker. You ever hear of Okrent's Law?

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

He also noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.

Another reason to call him a cracker.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Since the invasion in Iraq, the Times has almost always referred to "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" being responsible for the bombing and other acts of violence.

Your desperation is showing.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

That's all your going to do...laugh? Oh wait..

Bless your little heart. You don't know how to use Lexis-Nexis do you?

That's what I said to you when you first began posting. I'm glad you've learned to use it like the rest of us.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Precisely. I mean, I think I read that she said Libby told her Wilson's wife was involved in the CIA but he did not tell her Plame's name. But the name is in her notebook? And just because Libby didn't say her proper name that doesn't mean he did not out her. Saying "Wilson's wife is in the CIA" is virtually the same as saying, "Plame is in the CIA". It just takes a little research to uncover the latter, more specific information. Its very clear she's lying and the NYT should be ashamed of themselves for continuing her employment. They're just whoring this out to sell papers. Its really pathetic.

Plus, if she could not remember, then why did she go to jail for months to protect that - she could have testified then that she did not remember