NYTs Indicts Its Lousy Coverage of * in Its Delay Article

[stopbush]

Sorry, but I just had to laugh when I read this today:

April 7, 2005

DeLay Denounces Report on Payments to His Family
By CARL HULSE and PHILIP SHENON


"His Republican colleagues continued on Wednesday to rally to his defense, although a few have begun to question how long the leadership can withstand such withering coverage."


Hmmm? You mean "withering coverage" like the Times gave to the whole Whitewater debacle? How the Times continued to beat the anti-Clinton drum long after the original prosecutor dismissed the WW charges, keeping the story alive on their front page until Bill gave into his baser instincts and got caught in a minor sex scandal that almost brought down the most successful presidency of the past 30 years? THAT kind of coverage?

Where was the Times' "withering coverage" of the lies that led up to the illegal war? Where was the Times' "withering coverage" of Gov *'s 2000 & 2004 campaigns, the lies and deceptions, the character assassination by third parties (SB Liars)?

Maybe if the Times' had provided a little balance (forget "withering coverage"!) over the course of the * presidency there wouldn't be so many dead people lying around, an economy in ruins and the world on the brink. Maybe a little balance as opposed to cheerleading (Friedman) and blatant propaganda spreading (Judith Miller) would have made a difference. Maybe a little good old fashioned reporting was all that was needed to stop the madness before it really got going.

So, Fuck You, NYT!

Otherwise, not a bad article:

http://nytimes.com/2005/04/07/politics/07delay.html?ei=5094&en=a0c10728f5285f2b&hp=&ex=1112932800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1112886183-JMkl0NsCVaVZxugEp87bLg&pagewanted=print&position=

[rock]

1. Well said