From the mouthpiece of, who else, the New York Times.
Pfffffffttttttt!
"The Public Editor: When the Issue Is War, Take Nothing for Granted" by CLARK HOYT
A front-page article 11 days ago prompted a flurry of e-mail accusing The Times of playing into what readers said were Bush administration efforts to gin up hostility toward Iran.
The article reported that attacks on American-led forces with a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb “said to be supplied by Iran” had reached a new high in July. It quoted the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno.
Many readers recalled The Times’s failure to provide skeptical-enough coverage of the run-up to war in Iraq and said this article was more of the same, with only the name of the country changed.
“I’ve seen this movie before, and I didn’t like it,” said Frank J. Schmitz of Canton, Mass.
I don’t buy the view that The Times — in the words of a Crystal Gayle song of the ’70s — is headed down that wrong road again. I reviewed virtually everything the newspaper has published about Iran this year, and the record is a very good one. The Times has broken important stories on Iran’s nuclear program and on an internal debate within the administration over the option of military action, to name just two.
[Oh, listen to them tout their shit-spewing "news" coverage!
Yeah, you guys are just grand.
As a long time consumer, I can say unequivocally that you guys suck shit!]
But there are special lengths that The Times — or any other news organization — must go to when dealing with an issue so protracted, so complicated, and so politicized. It must take pains when reporting today’s events to add yesterday’s perspective. It must attribute information exhaustively to keep sources’ credibility and motives in view. And it must be willing to revisit old ground when new developments change the context.
[So why does the Times do NONE of this?]
The recent article demonstrates some of the pitfalls. I think it had avoidable problems that helped lead to the eruption of criticism, a view vehemently disputed by Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, and Michael Gordon, who wrote the piece.
Readers said that, at a time of growing tensions between the United States and Iran, the article failed to offer persuasive evidence that Iran was the source of the bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, E.F.P.’s, which can go through the armor of Humvees.
In fact, strong evidence was provided in a 2,600-word article by Gordon and Scott Shane, published March 27, and Gordon said, “I do sort of assume that readers will have some familiarity with the body of our coverage over the past few months.” I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption, and I believe The Times could have found a way to remind skeptics of the essentials in the March article without repeating it in its entirety.
[Oh, I've got the familiarity! That's why I get SICK of the LIES, shitters!]
This is a chronic issue that The Times and all newspapers face: How much can reporters and editors assume readers know? If it’s about Paris Hilton, maybe a lot. But if it’s about a large, complicated and politically charged story like Iran, readers need constant help with history and context — even the highly educated, elite audience of The Times.
[Is this the most condescending stinkshit elite crap you've ever heard?
Yeah, leave it to the LYING FUCKING TIMES that LIES on a CONSISTENT BASIS DAILY and LIED US INTO THIS WAR!!
Yeah, us numb duts out here know ALL ABOUT Paris (because of the CRAP shoveled to us by the MSM), but WE NEED HELP from the GREAT TIMES to UNDERSTAND Iran!
FUCK OFF, you ASSHOLE ELITE SHITSTINK!!!!
What a POMPOUS, ARROGANT, SHITSTINKING FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!!
Yeah, the highly-educated SHIT-EATING audience of the LYING FUCKING N.Y. Times!!!
What a fucking bunch of shit-eating, elite stinkshits!!]
Twelve paragraphs into the latest article, for example, readers were told that “some critics of Bush administration policy” accuse the administration of exaggerating Iran’s role to divert attention from its own mistakes. But if you wanted to know who those critics were and what they had to say, you would have had to revisit the March article, and you had no way, short of a phenomenally retentive memory, to know that.
[Yeah, you dumb fuck readers wouldn't remember shit from minute-to-minute, you fucking ignoramus empty-brain!]
Complicating matters, I found the central point of the latest Iran article elusive. When I started asking editors about it, they first brought up the fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs, which said that while the American military has been focused on operations against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni group, the increase in the use of E.F.P.’s was powerful evidence that Shiite militias remain a major long-term worry. The article said that Shiite militants carried out 73 percent of the attacks that killed or wounded American troops in July.
That is a striking number, which begged further exploration. After all, much of The Times’s recent coverage from Iraq had been stressing those American operations against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. How does that military focus square with the 73 percent number? Shiite militias would appear to be an immediate worry, not just a long-term one.
[Once again, the Times just shoveled "all the shit that's fit to spew!"]
When I talked with Gordon about the article, his first point was that the increased use of E.F.P.’s was militarily significant, and it was important to tell readers what kind of weapon is killing and injuring Americans, regardless of where the weapon comes from. He said he regarded the article as a follow-up to the story in March, when attacks with E.F.P.’s supplied by Iran had been declining. And he said it was important to report the evidence of increased Shiite militant activity.
[Yeah, what does it matter were the weapon comes from?
Just PIN the CHARGE on Iran and BLARE IT IN THE PAPER -- just like Iraq, you fucking lying Zionist-controlled scum-suckers!!
What a FUCKING OUTRAGE!!!
Gordo the mouthpiece! You LIP-LOCK that Pentagon COCK, Mike?]
Sorting through all of it, the article would have been clearer to me if it had started something like this: Shiite militants using E.F.P.’s supplied by Iran are launching a huge majority of the attacks that kill and wound Americans in Baghdad, a surprise given recent American military emphasis on combating the Sunni Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and powerful new evidence of how difficult a military predicament the United States faces in Iraq, where it must confront challenges from multiple directions at once.
[Which would basically reveal that the military is a bunch of SHIT-SPEWING LIARS!!!!]
Lacking a better focus, I believe the article was overplayed on Page 1. Keller said the play was a “slam dunk” to him because it portrayed “an interesting trend over several months in the use of lethal weapons against our troops” and “helps you understand the complexity of the threat” in Iraq.
[Oh, yeah, Keller, the nemesis of Bush, thinks the Iran case is a "slam dunk!!"
Now, where have we heard that expression before?
Let's ask George Tenet, shall we?]
In the article, Odierno was quoted as saying that Iran was “surging” its support of Iraqi militants to influence the Congressional debate on whether to withdraw American troops. There is no indication in the article that he was pressed for the basis of the statement, as I think he should have been. Gordon said that Odierno’s remark was “informed speculation” useful for readers to know.
[Translation: Gordo is a Pentagon megaphone -- nothing more!!!
Just WRITES what the military tells him!
So EATING SHIT is USEFUL FOR YOU DUMB-FUCK, Paris-knowledgable N.Y. Times week-ender shit-eaters out there!]
Most of the e-mail assailing this story attacked Gordon personally. I was astonished at the meanness of some of it and reminded anew of how debased so much of what passes for political discourse has become.
[Ooooooh, the Times astonished about how FED UP WITH THEIR FUCKING LIES WE ARE!!!
Well, you fuckers STARTED THIS WHOLE DISCOURSE by LYING US INTO THESE FUCKING WARS!!!!!!!!!
But being angry about getting fucked in the ass by your shit papers and its shameless war promotion is impolite!
Well, YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF A MILLION IRAQIS ON YOUR HANDS, you Zionist shitrag, NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!
Quit fucking LYING TO US, and maybe we wouldn't be so FURIOUS!!!
Tell the TRUTH, damn it!!!!]
Gordon figured in coverage leading up to the war in Iraq that The Times itself found to be flawed, but he was not alone, and he has a long record as a military correspondent that includes many triumphs. He is the author of two highly regarded books, on the first gulf war and the current war in Iraq.
[Oh, yeah, that crap propaganda he wrote should just be overlooked!
Never mind the LOSS of LIFE based on LIES the Times PROMOTED!!!
These stinkshits at the Times are a bunch of fucking cockshit assholes!!!!!!!]
I found fault with this article, but I know that Gordon has provided excellent coverage on Iran, like the March piece with Shane.
[Pffffttt! Times coverage is HORSESHIT EVERY FUCKING DAY! I know.
I've been eating the shit for seven years! But NO MORE!!!!]
Last Sunday, David Rohde and David Sanger wrote an impressive Page 1 article on “How the ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad.” The result of months of intensive research, with major sources on the record, including the last three U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan and an American ground commander, the article chronicled how miscalculations and a shift in focus to Iraq allowed the once-defeated Taliban to regroup and gain strength.
[Yeah, and the WEEK BEFORE, the Sunday lead was the British winning in Afghanistan.
Then the next day (a Monday, so the week-ender shit-eaters didn't see it), the Brits asked us to quit air bombing because they were losing.
So FUCK OFF with your EXHAUSTIVE PROPAGANDA, shitters!
WE ON TO YOU NOW, like FLIES on SHIT!!!]
This is the kind of story I hope The Times is pursuing relentlessly on all fronts about Iran — looking now at who is making what decisions based on what information. Admittedly, it’s a much harder story to get, but it might help prevent the need for the next what-went-wrong story."
[But we will put out the same half-hearted, page 11, lower-right corner non-apology!
After WE have plastered WAR PROPAGANDA against Iran all over the front page!
Here is some good advice, reader:
FUCK the New York Times and its CONDESCENDING STINKSHITS of ELITES!!]
