|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
from this morning's ny times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/wo...hp&oref=slogin
April 3, 2008
U.S. Cites Gaps in Planning of Iraqi Assault on Basra
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, ERIC SCHMITT and STEPHEN FARRELL
This article was reported by Michael R. Gordon, Eric Schmitt and Stephen Farrell <h3>and written by Mr. Gordon.</h3> |
roachboy, isn't it odd that the "oh sooooo liberal" NY Times, publishes the "work" of such a prolific Pentagon stenographer as Michael Gordon?
I'm not challenging anything specifically in your article, just sayimg that the NY Times seems to have learned nothing from it's experience employing Judith Miller, even though the "problem" of Michael Gordon has been repeatedly brought to the newspaper's attention....I guess they just like things the way they are:
Quote:
Michael Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran - Glenn ...
Glenn Greenwald. Monday July 2, 2007 07:30 EDT ... As Gordon himself points out: "In effect, American officials are charging that Iran has been engaged in a ...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../07/02/gordon/ - Similar pages - Note this
The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times - Glenn ...
Glenn Greenwald. Monday July 9, 2007 06:50 EST .... All one has to do is read Gordon's articles and it is immediately apparent that, time and again, ...
www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/09/hoyt/
...But Hoyt's column yesterday demonstrates that exactly the opposite is true. The Times is still doing exactly what it did before the invasion of Iraq -- the activities that supposedly brought it such "shame" -- and in many cases, it is exactly the same people who are doing it.
Just consider what Hoyt's criticisms yesterday mean. These criticisms apply not only to one article, but rather, to a whole series of articles. The criticisms concern not some obscure topic or isolated special report, but rather, the single most important political and journalistic issue of this decade -- the war in Iraq and the American media's coverage of government claims about that war.
And most significantly of all, Hoyt's criticisms are grounded not in a technical violation of some petty rule or failure to adhere to some debatable journalistic custom, but rather, involve the worst journalistic sin of all: namely, a failure to treat government claims with skepticism and a willingness mindlessly to recite such claims without scrutiny. If a newspaper simply prints government claims without skepticism, what remote value does it have other than as a propaganda amplifier? None. And yet, as Hoyt's column potently demonstrates, that is exactly what the NYT is doing in Iraq -- yet again.
In light of all of this, what rational argument can be mounted in response to the claim that the NYT is simply not interested in practicing real journalism when it comes to the Bush administration's actions in Iraq, or worse, that at least some editorial factions at the Times support the war and want to prop up the administration's political case? What other explanation is possible in light of the clear, lengthy record of the newspaper?
Just consider the record of Michael Gordon -- who, I want to stress, is not personally the problem but merely the most vivid manifestation of the ills of American political journalism. Based exclusively upon what has appeared in the Times itself -- thus excluding all external criticisms of his reporting -- this is Gordon's record of shame over the last four years:
* A May 26, 2004 NYT Editors' Note identifies several articles written or co-written by Gordon about the Bush administration's pro-war Iraq claims and says about that reporting "that it was not as rigorous as it should have been"; that the war-fueling case "was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged"; and the reporting was flawed because "Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length" with virtually no challenge or dissent.
* On January 28, 2007, NYT Public Editor Byron Calame reports that "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon," in which Gordon expressed clear support for President Bush's "surge" plan. The Times Washington Bureau Chief, Philip Taubman, said that Gordon "stepped over the line" by admitting that he supported escalation in Iraq.
* On February 27, 2007, Calame gently though clearly criticized an article by Gordon written about the Bush administration's "saber-rattling about Iranian intervention in Iraq" (and other articles on the same topic) on the ground that (a) Gordon's article violated the paper's rules on the use of anonymous government sources; (b) the reported government claims about Iran "needed some qualification" about whether they were based on evidence or inference; (c) readers "deserved a clearer sense" of whether such a belief about the Iranian leadership's involvement in Iraqi insurgent attacks is shared by a consensus of intelligence officials (which, as even the President subsequently admitted, it was not); and, most incriminatingly (given its obvious similarity to Gordon's pre-war failures), (d) "editors didn't make sure all conflicting views were always clearly reported" and the "story also should have noted . . . that the president's view on this point differed from the intelligence assessment given readers of [Gordon's] Feb. 10 article."
* Hoyt's column yesterday identifies a series of articles about Iraq, many written or co-written by Gordon, which "slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq," and further criticized the articles because "in using the language of the administration," these articles presented a misleading picture of Iraq.
Does anyone at the NYT really need help seeing the clear pattern here? What more does Gordon need to do in order to show how journalistically irresponsible he is, how either incapable or unwilling he is to treat Bush administration claims about the war with skepticism and do anything other than serve as an obedient vessel for pro-war government claims?......
Michael R. Gordon - SourceWatch
Glenn Greenwald, The NY Times returns to pre-Iraq-war "journalism", Salon, ... Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran, Salon.com, July 2, 2007. ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hael_R._Gordon
Gordon Selling "Surge"
In late 2006, the consistent theme in Gordon's reports was the desirability of an escalation ("troop surge") in Iraq. Alexander Cockburn wrote that:
"On September 11, 2006, the Times ran a Gordon story under the headline, "Grim Outlook Seen in West Iraq Without More Troops and Aid". Gordon cited a senior officer in Iraq saying more American troops were necessary to stabilize Anbar. [3] A story on October 22 emphasized that "the sectarian violence [in Baghdad] would be far worse if not for the American efforts." [4] There were of course plenty of Iraqis and some Americans Gordon could also have found, eager to say the exact opposite." [5]
On two successive days in November, the New York Times gave Gordon its front page for selling the "surge". November 14: "Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Some Experts Say". [6] November 15: "General Warns of Risks in Iraq if GIs Are Cut".On December 4, he tried to preempt the the Iraq Study Group report with another story: "Blurring Political Lines in the Military Debate". [7] On December 7, he wrote another attack on the repot: "Will it Work on the Battlefield?"
On January 2, he co-authored with John Burns and David Sanger a piece attacking Gen. George Casey, the commander of US forces in Iraq, for espousing a defeatist plan of orderly withdrawal. [8]
Appearing on TV, he fully supported the escalation, saying "I think it's worth one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win." [9]
|
The Bush admin. doesn't want to directly antagonize Maliki by having someone from the administration say what Michael Gordon wrote, so they pass it on to Gordon, and he publishes their communication for them, word for word!
Last edited by host; 04-03-2008 at 07:41 AM..
|