FLASHBACK: When the NY Times ignored gaping holes in candidate Bush's war record

[spanone]

One of the striking talking points that came out of The New York Times in the wake of its controversial article last week about whether Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal had, over the years, exaggerated his military service during the Vietnam War era, was the insistence from the Times that the story was a deeply important one and one that needed to be covered. The Times, faced with stiff criticism for its handling of the Blumenthal story, seemed to suggest it had a moral obligation, not to mention a newsroom duty, to look closely at the military service rhetoric from a New England politician running in a statewide election.

A Times flack even appeared to lecture Blumenthal about how he needed to be straight with Nutmeg State voters.

But I'm having a tough time buying the Times' sudden devotion to the topic, considering that during the 2000 presidential campaign, the same Times staff went out of its way not to report on the web of detailed allegations that Republican George Bush had failed to fulfill his military obligation while defending Texas air space as an Air National Guard pilot and that the presidential candidate had routinely lied about that fact. For that story, the Times team shrugged. But it's decided this spring to go all-in over Blumenthal? Seems strange.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005250042

[Swamp Rat]

1. k&r

[WCGreen]

2. Liberal media my ass....

[Carolina]

3. NYT, Washington Post, etc FAILURE

that's why the newspaper business is failing now. Deservedly so. Readership, subscriptions... have all dropped because people see throught the corporateganda and the skewed infotainment.

The only things newspapers are good for anymore are lining animal cages and training puppies!

[Mojeoux]

5. I like paper cross word puzzles. I like to mess them all up. Ha Ha nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. But we quote the MSM all of the time......

and in fact line up in those threads, and as long as they agree with our views, some kick with wild abandon sometimes after reading the headline only.

You know, I'm getting tired of us deciding hat to ignore the fucked up press as one of the factors why Democrats always have to navigate so gingerly all over the place is supposed to make sense. We call our Democratic politicians names like Not Balls, and wimps and shit, but I think sometimes we do not even understand what they are really up against. If folks think after election 2000, that there is actually a fair or free press in this country, and if folks think that they aren't on attempting to undermine this administration 24/7, then they don't know jack.

[gratuitous]

6. Bush was just running for President

Now Junior Senator from Connecticut? That's a position fraught with power and responsibility! This needs, nay requires, the full attention of the Newspaper of Record. And what, exactly, did Blumenthal claim? Well, kind of a misstatement about "serving" when he didn't really serve. He promptly walked back the misstatement, but when the somnambulent Bulldogs of the Fourth Estate are on the trail, and when they don't have to worry about retribution from the Bush Family, they can be, well, bulldogs.

Not that the Times publishes with any regard of fear or favor. Well, not much, at least.

[Scurrilous]

7. K & R

:thumbsup:

[aquart]

8. They really couldn't keep my readership after that.

But they didn't feel they needed liberal support when they had so many rich people to appeal to.

[katandmoon]

9. K&R

[Dawson Leery]

10. k/r

[kestrel91316]

11. But as one of Gawd's anointed, Saint Dubya could literally do no wrong,

so you're comparing apples and oranges, silly.

[EFerrari]

12. The BBC never retracted the TX Air National Guard story

and props to Greg Palast for breaking it.

[UTUSN]

13. K&R #15 n/t

[grasswire]

14. I am being re-traumatized.

I want to scream. That (s)election was as traumatic a time as 9/11.