Friday, September 29, 2006
Frist finds feck, funds fence? By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine:
The following blurb recalls the days of the NYT SwiftBoat debunking using Kevin Bacon's Six Degrees of Separation.
Whatever the Dems need, the NYT will do their best to help.
"Here's the second paragraph from Raymond Hernandez' Wednesday NYT story on Hillary:
In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration's response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.
Doesn't that sound as if the presidential briefing had warned Bush that Al Qaeda would use planes as weapons? It does to me....the briefing itself, which mentions 'hijackings' but only in the traditonal context--i.e. taking over a plane 'to gain the release of 'Blind Shaykh' 'Umar' Abd-al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.'
An old controversy, I know--but that's why it's so astonishing to find this casual, loaded distortion in the lede of an important story. Hernandez--or whatever anonymous Times editor decided to goose up his second graf--had to have known that the sentence was deceptive, no? Or if they didn't know they didn't care. ... We're a month away from an election! They're manning the battle stations at the NYT."
The following blurb recalls the days of the NYT SwiftBoat debunking using Kevin Bacon's Six Degrees of Separation.
Whatever the Dems need, the NYT will do their best to help.
"Here's the second paragraph from Raymond Hernandez' Wednesday NYT story on Hillary:
In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration's response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.
Doesn't that sound as if the presidential briefing had warned Bush that Al Qaeda would use planes as weapons? It does to me....the briefing itself, which mentions 'hijackings' but only in the traditonal context--i.e. taking over a plane 'to gain the release of 'Blind Shaykh' 'Umar' Abd-al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.'
An old controversy, I know--but that's why it's so astonishing to find this casual, loaded distortion in the lede of an important story. Hernandez--or whatever anonymous Times editor decided to goose up his second graf--had to have known that the sentence was deceptive, no? Or if they didn't know they didn't care. ... We're a month away from an election! They're manning the battle stations at the NYT."
Comments:
Post a Comment
