New at Reason

David Weigel | September 27, 2006

Cathy Young runs down the not-so-swift criticisms of the New York Times from the hysterical right.

Comments

|9.27.06 @ 1:24PM|#

They hate us because of our freedom.

|9.27.06 @ 1:26PM|#

How is it that giving away state secrets can never be treason?

|9.27.06 @ 1:27PM|#

The NYT is a partisan rag...it should be of no suprise that partisans on the other side have targeted it.

It is no different when the left bitched about fox news calling florida for bush in the 2000 election.

|9.27.06 @ 1:57PM|#

How is it that giving away state secrets can never be treason?

It CAN be treason, if a government official with trusted state secrets were giving it away specificly to aid the enemy.

However, if a newspaper does research, and uncovers facts about a government program, it is not treason if they decide to print it. If the government wants to be all cloak-and-dagger with things, then the spy-ninjas should do a better job in keeping their secret a damn secret. If some idiot from the New York Times can uncover the secret, then surely foreign governments (and their client terrorist organizations) know the secrets.

The NYT is a partisan rag...it should be of no suprise that partisans on the other side have targeted it.

It is no different when the left bitched about fox news calling florida for bush in the 2000 election.

Just because the left are totalitarians, doesn't excuse rightwing facism. When the voice of the right is talking about executing reporters or editors of a paper they don't like, that should trigger alarm bells in people's minds.

|9.27.06 @ 2:02PM|#

"The NYT is a partisan rag..."

What isnt? Really.

USA Today? Partisan towards people who dont like news.

I read the Times and the WSJournal daily (& H&R of course), the economist weekly.

I'd say of the three, they are barely that different except on the editorial pages, where they all diverge sharply.

Occasionally there is 'partisanship' in what they choose to cover, but usually not how they cover it. Not, for instance, like the spin you saw in the WaPo piece cited on H&R today. Occasionally there is obvious slant, but it's often in the 'news analysis' stories - not the journalism. Accusing the NYT of being uniquely partisan seems to suggest that most everybody else is objective as Vulcans. Name me the standard by which all others should be judged?

If you think the NSA is above the constitution, then forget what i'm saying.

re: How is it that giving away state secrets can never be treason?>
Comment by: Larry

The US does not have an "official secrets" act. There's also this weird anachronism called the First Amendment.

If you think Bill Keller should be shot, great! Go burn him in effigy in Times Square or something. Exercise your rights. Maybe more good citizens will hear the call, and you can all just lynch him.

JG

|9.27.06 @ 2:18PM|#

The CRs at my school invited David Horowitz to speak. I was damn upset, not because of what he supports per se, but because he is this loudass blowhard. It was really disappointing since my university has a pretty solid academic conservative tradition, and then they bring in this Michael Savage-lite douche bag.

My advice to all the CRs out there who aspire to legitimacy is this: don't invite any speakers whose livelihood largely depends on speaking to College Republicans.

For the record I was thinking of joining the College Democrats so that I could tell people that I was in the CDs, and then when they ask, "What are the CDs", I could reply See Deez Nuts.

|9.27.06 @ 2:20PM|#

"Go burn him in effigy in Times Square..."

OK

Where is "effigy"?

|9.27.06 @ 2:26PM|#

FEG? Is that one of the subway lines?

|9.27.06 @ 2:36PM|#

...'Because Rumsfeld gave permission' may cut it with the moonbats and fairweather privocrats. Not with me."


People with Masters degrees in political theory are out looking for work, while somebody makes a plush living saying shit like this?

Screw it, where's my propeller hat...

|9.27.06 @ 2:54PM|#

"""People with Masters degrees in political theory are out looking for work, while somebody makes a plush living saying shit like this?"""

I second that.

What get me is that very few really knows if the NY Times is ever right when they run these stories. There is ample room for deinal.

Soooooooooooo. Why are these lame pundits (that work for the evil liberal media, but pretend they don't) say nothing when the President removes all doubt to the story by CONFIRMING THAT THE STORY IS TRUE..

When the President confirms the story, he too would be commiting treason, (if it amounts to that) even more so than the people publishing it that don't really know if their sources are indeed factual.

Or is the answer to Larry's question, when it's the President.

|9.27.06 @ 2:54PM|#

People with Masters degrees in political theory are out looking for work, while somebody makes a plush living saying shit like this?

Um, in a healthy society, people with masters degrees in political theory should have day jobs.

|9.27.06 @ 3:12PM|#

"The NYT is a partisan rag..."

That's really unfair. While they did mount a full-scale effort to keep the Whitewater/Lewinsky story afloat, and they did obediently carry the White House's water by publishing story after story about Iraqi WMDs and Al Qaeda links, but I think they've gotten a lot better since then.

|9.27.06 @ 3:30PM|#

When are they gonna start printing all the positive things going on in Iraq?

|9.27.06 @ 3:40PM|#

That picture of Malkin is awesome. I normally think she's kind of cute, in a weirdly angular way (weird because I've never seen an angular Filipina before, and I used to date one and hang out with her family, so I've met a lot of Filipinas).

But it looks like her face is melting off in that shot.

Or maybe it's just that I saw Land of the Dead last night.

|9.27.06 @ 3:46PM|#

It would require hard work not to see any left-wing leanings in the Times, but, like all of the media, partisanship be damned if there's money to be made. If they uncovered video of the House Democrats engaging in an orgy, the only moment of partisanship would be when the editors would say, "Damned shame this wasn't the Republicans", while printing every single lurid detail. With color pictures. And sales of the video to CNN. Part of this is institutional, part of it is the difference between the people who own the media outlets and those who work for them.

|9.27.06 @ 3:59PM|#

""""The NYT is a partisan rag..."

That's really unfair. While they did mount a full-scale effort to keep the Whitewater/Lewinsky story afloat, and they did obediently carry the White House's water by publishing story after story about Iraqi WMDs and Al Qaeda links, but I think they've gotten a lot better since then"""

A NY Times reporter spent more than two months in jail to protect a source which was a senior Whitehouse official (Libby). I think the right wing should show them some respect for that.

|9.27.06 @ 4:16PM|#

I like the other half of joshua corning's comment, too.

"The NYT is a partisan rag...it should be of no suprise that partisans on the other side have targeted it."

See, on the one hand, the NYT prints things that conservatives think are unfair. So it's really no surpise that they would call for its reporters and editors to be put to death.

|9.27.06 @ 4:25PM|#

During WWII we had an Office of War Information to keep a lid on stuff like this. Of course, we also had an actual @%#*&!!! Declaration of War!

Don't give me any guff about "Congressional Authorization of Force," either. I can't find that in my Constitution.

Kevin

|9.27.06 @ 4:35PM|#

So far nobody has gone after KSFO 560's resident nitwit; Melanie Morgan. In my estimation....little more than a life support system for a vagina! And thats all I have to say about that!

|9.27.06 @ 5:54PM|#

>>When are they gonna start printing all the positive things going on in Iraq?

Well, that would be when they become a true partisan rag: At National Review I read a lot about the positive things going on in Iraq...

Jammer|9.27.06 @ 6:20PM|#

So it's really no surpise that they would call for its reporters and editors to be put to death.

Don't you mean "she", joe?

|9.27.06 @ 7:21PM|#

"It is no different when the left bitched about fox news calling Florida for bush in the 2000 election."
Right, I had forgotten about how all of those lefties called for the execution of Fox's producers after that happened. Yup same thing I guess...in knobjockeyland.

So Cathy Young produces an article in which she actually takes a stand and some douchwit like Josh Corning has to come along and play that mental defective equivalency game. Okey Dokey Joshie.

|9.27.06 @ 9:38PM|#

An excellent piece of clever vitriol. Well done.

|9.27.06 @ 10:52PM|#

...Treasury Department program that monitors international financial transactions for terrorist connections.

Duh. Is this really a secret? I thought the government has always been monitoring international transactions, at the very latest during the Clinton Admin.

dhex|9.28.06 @ 12:30AM|#

yeah, saying "hey, i think they should kill this guy, my fellow citizen, because i am insane" is pretty much over teh tops.

|9.28.06 @ 12:39PM|#

""Don't give me any guff about "Congressional Authorization of Force," either. I can't find that in my Constitution."""

You mean an AUF as opposed to Congress declaring war?

Certainly the Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war. But no, there is no mention of the AUFs used today. I believe it's from the War Powers act. You would have to double check me on that.

|9.28.06 @ 1:12PM|#

"The NYT is a partisan rag...it should be of no suprise that partisans on the other side have targeted it."

See, on the one hand, the NYT prints things that conservatives think are unfair. So it's really no surpise that they would call for its reporters and editors to be put to death.

Yeah i know ann culter is crazy...now tell me how many years i get if i don't pay my taxes?

There is a differance between supporting an existing brutal regime and supporting a non-existant brutal regime.

How is that government job going for you joe?

|10.2.06 @ 9:44AM|#

Joshua Corning:
The Democrats aren't even united, yet you say the NY Times is a partisan rag. Which faction does it support? Does it support the "help the Bush Administration sell the Iraq war" faction of the Democratic party? I think you mean a liberal rag, but your sloppy writing isn't sophisticated enough to convey that point.