January 13, 2003
|
Does the New York Times Editorial Board Still Think That "Few Can Doubt Mr. Bush's Commitment To A Multiracial America"?
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
On December 31, 2002, we posted a news analysis entitled, "This Week's 'What-are-They-Smoking-in-the-Editorial-Board-Meetings-of-the-New-York-Times' Award Goes to the Entire NYT Editorial board." (See below and http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/12/31_Bush.html). We were trying to fathom how the NYT Editorial board could have dared to include the following egregiously false, suck-up sentences in an editorial about Trent Lott:
"No one has put more effort than George W. Bush into ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven. For all the disagreement that many African-Americans have with his policies, few can doubt Mr. Bush's commitment to a multiracial America."
When we first read it, in disbelief, we thought that it was an error. Then we realized that maybe the NYT Editorial board was smoking the wacky weed and just wanted to see if anyone would notice, just a little dopey prank. Of course, the other possibility is that the NYT Editorial board pulls its punches from time-to-time because the multi-billion dollar New York Times Company, of which the NYT is only one component, can't afford to irreversibly alienate the Bush administration. That's because the NYT, with billions of dollars in income, will need the Bush administration, occasionally, when financial issues arise that require government oversight or intervention. You know, little things like mergers that might be considered for anti-trust cases, IRS audits, S.E.C. probes -- little financial issues like these.
Like every other business in the country, the NYT knows that the Bush administration takes no prisoners, that it is as vindictive as a drug cartel. The Bush Cartel doesn't necessarily rub anyone out, but they do know how to "handle" what they perceive as "disloyalty." So, the NYT knows that it has a corporate board, media acquisition, shareholders, and profits to consider. Anyone who thinks that the NYT or Washington Post editorial boards are completely unaware of these factors is smoking dope too.
That's not to say the NYT editorial board doesn't print an aggressive editorial against Bush now and then. In fact, on January 12th, it ran an excellent indictment of the Bush Cartel assault on women's rights, "The War Against Women." (See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/12SUN1.html).
But, overall, one can theorize that the New York Times needs to make sure they don't go "too far" in "negative" news coverage or editorial indictment. They can't AFFORD to irretrievably raise the ire of the Bush Cartel. Whatever they do, they don't want to get on Karl Rove or Dick Cheney's hit list.
Maybe BuzzFlash has got this all wrong, and that when the NYT prints an editorial observation that praises George W. Bush for what he has done for minorities, they really believe it.
Actually, that might be a more frightening alternative than the BuzzFlash theory we have proposed above.
But BuzzFlash has a request of the New York Times. Please tell us, in a written response, how re-nominating Judge Pickering, opposing affirmative action, suppressing black votes, proposing legislation to throw welfare families out on the street, trying to dismantle the public school system, visiting Bob Jones University at a time they banned interracial dating, supporting the Confederate Flag, making Neo-Confederacy administration appointments right and left, praising Strom Thurmond, allowing John Ashcroft to fill the Justice Department Civil Rights Division with Neo-Confederacy stalwarts, appointing John Ashcroft (a hardcore Neo-Confederacy advocate to begin with) to head the Justice Department, trying to dismantle government services to the minorities and the poor, sending a heavily minority volunteer army off to get killed (without any members of his cabinet having children in the military), setting a record for executing prisoners in Texas (with the executed being disproportionately minority) even though the Texas capital punishment criminal justice system is widely thought to be riddled with flaws and biased against minorities....Well, we just thought we'd mention a few points to those wise, all-knowing members of the NYT editorial board. We could go on and on, but we need to get back to gluing our computer back together (just joking).
BuzzFlash may not be a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, but maybe that's why we can AFFORD to tell the truth.
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: Of course, there is another option that journalists sometimes acknowledge. They say that they cannot permanently alienate the White House because their access will be cut off. But with the Bush White House, that might be a good thing for most media outlets. After all, BuzzFlash has no access to the White House in any way shape or form. But we are able to get closer to the truth of things* than the lapdog White House press corps. (*The same goes for sites like mediawhoresonline.com, takebackthemedia.com, democrats.com, democraticunderground.com, makethemaccountable.com, bartcop.com and so on.)
Of course, the value of such coveted White House "access" is journalistically tarnished when the NYT and Washington Post news divisions become conduits for White House propaganda. One illuminating commentary of how this destructively symbiotic relationship works can be found in an incisive analysis by a British (of course) journalist entitled, "The Papers That Cried Wolf." (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,861126,00.html).
Again, that is not to say that the NYT and Washington Post print nothing of value. There are plenty of good articles -- and the NYT and Washington Post are to be commended for some of their columnists, including Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne, respectively. There are even some "on target" editorials, which we link to. But they know how far to go, short of pulling the veil off of the illusion of legitimacy perpetrated by the Bush Cartel. That way, they can still have "access" to the Karl Rove propaganda machine -- and, in the process, become a conduit for the White House spin.
* * *
The following is the December 31, 2002, BuzzFlash News Analysis on the New York Times editorial on Trent Lott and Bush:
December 31, 2002
This Week's "What-are-They-Smoking-in-the-Editorial-Board-Meetings-of-the-New-York-Times" Award Goes to the Entire NYT Editorial board
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash.com is still following up on our coverage of the recent l'affaire Trent Lott.
As 2002 ends, we thought it fitting to post this quotation from a December 12, New York Times editorial that called for Bush to fire Trent Lott. We meant to post it earlier but were just too busy.
Once again, it's hard to figure out how the New York Times can be considered a "liberal paper" when its editorial board collectively comes to conclusions such as the following (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/opinion/12THU1.html):
"No one has put more effort than George W. Bush into ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven. For all the disagreement that many African-Americans have with his policies, few can doubt Mr. Bush's commitment to a multiracial America."
Excuse us! Obviously, the New York Times editorial board has been snookered by all those photo-ops of Bush reading books to little black children. Does the New York Times consider the appointment of numerous Neo-confederacy federal judges part of Bush's efforts to be inclusive? Do they consider the dismantling of programs that support minority education part of his positive approach? Do they consider the Draconian cuts in the welfare "reform" program that would cut back on educational and training opportunities for all minority and white women positive? When he campaigned in the South and used code words to support the Neo-confederacy states' rights movement was he "ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven"? When the GOP regularly engages in efforts to suppress black votes in elections, is Mr. Bush supporting voting rights for everybody? And if you promote persons and implement policies that undercut a multiracial America, how can you be committed to achieving a multiracial America?
We could go on and on, but we think that the New York Times should institute a no-smoking (of the wacky weed) policy for its editorial board. Clearly there must be some explanation for their great imaginative leaps that have no bearing in reality.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
