Wednesday, July 17, 2024
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Seven Days in May, 2013 (May 8 - 14):

Who Can Take the
New York Times Seriously?

May 15, 2013 --

LPR has read much of the news coverage of the Benghazi tragedy in The New York Times and concludes that the the news columns generally promoted the notion that Benghazi was a protest in response to an anti-Islam video that went bad. Yet, glimmering of light occasionally broke through the news clouds. The Times, September 15, for example, cited "guards at the compound" as saying that the attack occurred "at about 9:30 p.m., without advance warning or any peaceful protest." Yet this account went on to report that "[t]he current information available to the White House suggests that the protests in Benghazi were spontaneous and spurred by the Cairo protests but evolved" into an Islamic extremist attack.

The New York Times editorials on Benghazi reflected the paper's obsession with Republicans, worthy of an official government newspaper. After the May 8 congressional hearing on Benghazi, the Times, notwithstanding a front page subhead stating "NEW BENGHAZI DETAILS" in the lead story, May 9, editorialized, May 10 that "the hearing showed, yet again "that the Republicans were not interested in "sober fact-finding."

This editorial, "The Republicans' Benghazi Obsession," declared "Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

LPR learned some time ago that accuracy in political punditry is achieved by turning Times' editorials on their head. Thus, we learn from the May 10 editorial that the paper is not interested in the facts on Benghazi, pursuing, instead, anti-Republican "conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit" conservatives.

Actually, recent news reports indicate that the Obama administration has pursued its own relentless effort to discredit Tea Party conservatives by harassing tactics in response to Tea Party requests for tax-exemption. As of May 13, The New York Times had not commented on I.R.S.-gate.

The Times buried its first I.R.S.-gate article on page A11. The paper ran the May 12 I.R.S.-gate article on the front page but the focus was as much on possible political gains by Republican as on I.R.S. political misdeed. I.R.S. harassment of conservative groups included demands that lengthy questionnaires be filled out.

Perhaps the Times, if it does run an editorial will contend that there is no difference between such I.R.S. questionnaires and GOP demands of Obama appointees to cabinet posts.

LPR says -- lets end tax exemptions for all political groups!