On my trip to Russia the difficulty of this was brought home to me when one of my dinner companions exclaimed, “If not the New York Times, then where should I turn for my news?" I have thought about this and I guess the Times can be put in the same category as Democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, which he gave in a speech to the House of Commons in 1947, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” The same may be said of our media and particularly the New York Times and its columnists.
As bad as they are, they are better than nothing, and certainly better than what pretends to be news on TV, and I would certainly urge my readers to read and keep informed by the only media we have, but to do so with a jaundiced eye.
Having said the above as a preamble, I want to share with my readers a comment I received from Joe Kerrigan of Iselin, NJ which as well as anything illustrates why the New York Times can be a dangerously deceptive news source, and why reading my postings along with its source material can avoid major misconceptions. Kerrigan wrote:
Enjoyed your column, as always. Suggest that when you speak in absolute terms, you do so with Greater caution or more reflection, a la your reference to Al Gore . He did not invent the Internet. An agency of the federal government did. I believe it is commonly referred to as DARPA.
To which I responded:
(With respect to) …your recommendation that when I am speaking in "absolute terms" I do so with "Greater caution or more reflection, a la (my) reference to Al Gore", I can assure you that I exercise the "Greatest caution", and reflect carefully before I write. If there is one thing that I am meticulous about, it is making absolutely sure that what I state as facts, are facts.
The problem is not with my care, but rather with the care of my readers, who like most others, read carelessly, and often confine their reading to headlines, or at best to the first paragraph or two, making assumptions as to the rest.
Their is also a tendency to look upon the New York Times as the gospel, and so when anyone tries to expose them, to assume that those who would do so must be mistaken, or at least careless.
And so you have allowed yourself to continue to be misled by a superficiality of reading, and never took the time to refer to my blog posting "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore," which if you had, you would not have been misled. (Article can be accessed by clicking on brown title)
You are quite right that Gore did not invent the Internet. What you overlooked was that this is not where the lie lay. The lie lay in the false and malicious charge that Gore had ever claimed that he did. He had not made such a claim!!!!
Now since I can't get you, or for that matter very few of my readers to go to the references, which are available with just a click of the mouse, I will quote from the referenced source:
"Here are the facts:
"In 1989, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act, a five-year, $1.7 billion program to expand the capacity of the information highway to connect government, industry, and academic institutions. Signed by President Bush in 1991, the bill supported research and development for an improved national computer system, and assisted colleges and libraries in connecting to the new network. In 1989, when few public officials grasped the profound changes that new information technology would bring, Gore saw them plainly. "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses," he told a House committee in the spring of 1989.
"On this basis Gore said in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” As can be seen, this was entirely true. HE DID NOT SAY HE “INVENTED” THE INTERNET."
But once a lie is spread, it is almost impossible to erase it. The truth never catches up with the lie, particularly when the New York Times is one of the sources and refuses to issue a retraction.
I know that all myth have a life of their own and we live by them. I try to dispel these myths. As you can see from your own reaction, it is not easily done.
As a matter of fact this was not the only lie promulgated by the media in general and the New York Times in particular about Gore, which may well, have cost him his election, a result which has been haunting us long beyond that election, and which is and remains history. It may be that this election set the stage for all that has followed.
The Times and the media also spread lies about what Gore said about Love Canal and the “Superfund.” Please, Please read that posting "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and while you are at it take the time to read: "The Media! (Watergate/Clinton)" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry."
Unless you read these articles you will be lacking an understanding of the extent to which the media could not and can’t be trusted. The truth can be found, but it takes work and dedication.
But our faith in the New York Times has been so ingrained that Leonard Levenson Esq. of New York responded to my criticism of the Times columnists with:
Do not confuse the opinions of op Ed or other writers for a particular editorial policy of a newspaper. The Times uses writers such as Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman who all have differing views on the economy and Obama. I am not quite as cynical as you are about the motives of all newspapers. Obviously, some tabloids are interested only on increasing circulation or are the mouthpieces for particular interests. I do believe that papers like the Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and The New York Times are altruistically motivated.
I am astonished that you, of all people, are prepared to criticize those that criticize Obama. I say "you of all people" because I identify you as one who is an unyielding advocate of the free exchange of ideas and "let the chips fall where they may.” The Republicans do not need help from Democrats to criticize Obama. The difference is that the Republicans make no sense in the attacks. Democrats are thoughtful and balanced in their criticism and is not a rejection of his ideas but of his methodology. The Republicans are "know-nothing" obstructionists with no intelligent alternatives to most of Obamas very intelligent ideas.
To which I replied:
Do not confuse newspapers editorial policy with their news reporting. The Wall Street Journal has always had a terrible, even slanderous editorial page, but it’s reporting has been sterling. The Times has a good editorial page, but its news pages have become increasingly questionable, and I can give endless examples. But for now let us focus on what I wrote below which I am not sure you read, or at least not carefully. How do you explain Judith Miller who shilled for the Bush Administration in the pages of the Times by publishing selected and distorted facts in support of the Iraq war, or the facts set forth in "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry" and in criticizing Krugman et al., I am not doing so not just for opinions but for falsehoods, and I can cite other articles in the Times and other "good newspapers" that are misleading or out and out false.
Yes, I have become cynical but with good reason. In the cited articles about Gore and Kerry I cite both the Times and the Washington Post for misleading and slanderous articles about the Democratic candidates that may well have cost them the election. The Trojan Horse refers not just to Krugman but to just about everybody in the media.
But after all the New York Times carping, along with the rest of the “liberal media” about what a bad deal the President made with Republicans to avoid a default, the Times suddenly discovered the merit therein, writing in their editorial of October 1, 2011:
But that supposed victory has forced many Republicans into an equally tight corner. They are starting to realize that if they remain adamant, the resulting across-the-board cuts will disproportionately affect programs they support, starting with military spending.
The joint committee created by the debt-ceiling agreement is desperately groping behind closed doors for ways to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit. Republican leaders want it all to come from spending cuts; Democratic leaders want a mix of cuts and revenue increases. If the two sides cannot agree, there will be automatic cuts, which largely spare social-welfare programs but would severely reduce military and security spending. (Emphasis added)
Better late, then never!!!!!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment