The New York Times prosecution story is misleading to say the least. It makes the NYT appear to be this courageous reporting machine that constantly keeps the public informed and the government in check no matter what. This is an incorrect notion. The NYT for most part supports government policies. Any differences between the government line and the NYT on significant issues is purely at a superficial level (hardly the traits of a courageous crusader). The NYT rarely reflects what is truly going on.
If you think the current NYT story is so important, consider this: would exposing the program really limit its usefulness ? No, because in the words of Bill Keller himself, the executive editor of The Times, "It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods". So why is this story suddenly so earth-shaking ? Bill Keller himself says that the "expose" will most likely have no effect on the program and that the program is most likely already legal. Bill Keller also says that "It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case". So apparently the story is merely exposing something that is most likely already legal and that exposing it will have no effect on the program. I suspect the key reason for exposing this is to make the NYT look good in the eyes of the public, but in the long run is inconsequential.
Why then would the government bother to prosecute the NYT when the NYT is already so compliant ? I suspect that by threatening prosecution (on a non-issue), the government is trying to set a precedent. If we can prosecute the NYT, imagine what we can do to you independent press. If any of you teeny-weeny truth telling journalists ever try to say something against us, we'll crush you. The idea is create an atmosphere of intimidation whereby reporting with real integrity (unlike the NYT) suffers.
The NYT (or all major media) is based on the following model: It sells its audiences to its advertisers (i.e. businesses). Why would the NYT ever be anti-business ? The businesses would immediately withdraw all advertising and revenues would drop. The NYT DOES NOT make money from its subscriptions. It makes money off its advertisers.
Below are some examples on how the NYT isn't exactly the shining beacon of independent and unbiased reporting. These examples are but the tip of the iceberg. You can also refer to some well researched material on this topic (propaganda model) in the book by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky.
Pro-War propaganda
We all know about Judith Miller who was an integral part of the NYT in helping spread baseless propaganda (from unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" ). I repeat, Miller used questionable intelligence to further the administrations pro-war position. Does this sound like the kind of reporting with fierce journalistic integrity ? Remember, the Iraq was is one of the most important issues right now and the NYT wasn't exactly interested in the facts in in pre-war reporting.
NSA spying
The NYT sat on the NSA spying story for almost a year
US complicity in the 1965-1966 Indonesian massacre
The New York Times, ignored the story for nearly two months, then produced (7/12/90) what can only be described as an attack on credibility of the reporter who broke the story.
East Timor Massacre
As Indonesian killing in East Timor reached a peak in 1977 and 1978, New York Times coverage of that area fell to zero
UN Spying Scandal
In March, 2003 it was revealed that the NSA had been spying on the UN Security Council including even the phone conversions of Kofi Annan himself. The spying was committed by the US, the UK and Australia, to get intelligence ensure UN support for the upcoming 2003 war. the NYT took its own time to report this. Apparently, spying on UN offficials is not newsworthy.
For more research on accuracy in media reporting, check the FAIR website. FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986
FAIR's section on the NYT
No comments:
Post a Comment