Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante? Should the Pope Be Catholic?
Recently, a New York Times editor Arthur Brisbane wrote,
“I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”
Dear Mr. Brisbane,
“I’m looking for reader input on whether you have lost your balls and where they might be found, if so.”
WHAT IS BEING A JOURNALIST ALL ABOUT?
ARE YOU INSANE?
ARE YOU ASKING US WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD REPORT THE TRUTH, OR JUST PRETEND TO?
WTF New York Times?
DO YOU ALL HAVE JOURNALISM DEGREES OR NOT?
Did you go to fashion school instead of journalism school?
What, is it just UNFASHIONABLE to tell the truth now, so why bother?
Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante?
A Vigilante? What do you even mean by that? How about a Truth Teller, or the more old-fashioned term, Journalist? What is more important than telling the truth with the USA’s biggest newspaper, if you have the chance to? What is more important than that? What is more important than telling people they are being lied to, and what to do about it? What is more important than standing up and saying, “This is not right, and we do not agree” with the “newsmakers” you write about?
Do you know what one very brave journalist named Chris Hedges is doing right now?
He is suing the pants off of Barack Obama for daring to detain American Citizens for no reason, because that just happens to be unconstitutional. That’s right. He’s not just being a journalist, he’s being an activist. He’s doing on our behalf. The New York Times might want to stand with a fellow journalist at this time. They might want to applaud the guts that he has and do their best to keep this issue in the forefront of the newspaper reporting.
Chris Hedges writes on TruthDig.org: “This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state.
Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason.
Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties.
It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.
The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t.
What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled.
So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?
Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power.
Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough.
If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship.
Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.”
WHAT is the point of having a newspaper if you are asking your readers whether or not you should tell the truth?
What kind of spineless, gutless newspaper are you running?
Are you just trolling for comments?
WHAT GIVES?!
Are you basically saying that you are going to become a mouthpiece for the government in a country known for freedom, liberty, equality and justice? Oh, the irony!
Might as well rename The New York Times “Government Pamphlet #1444″ and be done with it Mr. Brisbane!
And if you want some balls, I have extras.
February 14th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
That was such a stupid bit by the Times. I can’t even be bothered to dignify it with a more thoughtful insult.