I often try to understand the cap-doffing deference shown by Americans (and admittedly a lot of journalists around the world) to the New York Times. While I don’t find it completely bizarre that people have such deference for a media source - a lot of people in the UK have a similar attachment to the BBC - I do find it illogical that people can’t comprehend why criticism might be a worthwhile process. Apparently, in order to display an opinion you have to be motivated by an ulterior motive (usually greed or jealousy).

I’d put it to the “hey Jeff, get off the Times’ back” crowd that JJ actually wants the NYT to be *better* (as do most of its genuine critics, I think). It’s a bastion of journalism that too often relies on self-satisfaction to plump up its own position - this column seems a prime candidate - and while its not alone in succumbing to hubris, it does hold a special position that needs to be backed up with action and not just fine words.

If such examination begins by wondering whether they should have less achingly tedious columns from the ombudsmen, then I’m all for it.

The issue is one of credibility. Traditional outlets have already lost it among the young, because they know who owns the media. Real news happens and is reported on by unauthorized outlets which do not filter their viewpoints for mass consumption. This does mean that each blog will have some bias, some errors, and a distinct viewpoint. But since there will be so many more outlets to choose from, there is a much more personal experience of the news.

Now, which Iraq blog should I read today…..

So? Being wrong about one thing does not make you wrong about every thing else. No one can be consistently wrong, sooner or later you are going to get something right. Focusing on WMDs was the wrong way to go about it, when Saddam’s possession or non-possession of such had nothing to do with the case. Saddam was in continued, persistent, and blatant violation of the cease fire agreement. He needed overthrowing, and we were in place to do it.

And really, the yellow cake crap is only a convenient excuse for the anti-Bush crowd. If we weren’t in Iraq the same people who bitch about our presence there now would be bitching about our absence, and blaming it on Bush.

It’s about the President. It’s always been about the President, it will always be about the President from now until it becomes a subject to bore school kids with. Had Gore not thrown away the election we’d still be in Iraq at this time, and I submit that certain people would be as ardently for the war as they are ardently against it now.

The left has forgotten its way, and they hate being reminded of this fact.

Oh, and Ruth? While defending the Times ain’t exactly my thing either, maybe they gave Dubya a “pass” because he never actually - you know - said any of that stuff. Ya think?

Do I smell only contempt from the establishment in the air, then, or is that the scent of their fear?

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-new-york-times-credibility-sinks.html

From the above article: (April 3rd)

“On the 18th of March, The Times was caught out with bogus story on Abu Ghraib.

Now today we learn the Times has been caught out with a fake story from Iraq.”

I dunno, though. Your thoughts in helping me make/unmake this argument would be most useful.