Memo to Bill Keller: your latest open letter hasn't exonerated the New York Times from its shoddy reporting. Not by a longshot.
Newspaper of record. It's a phrase that gives an air of sophistication to the pulp fiction we consider news; a paper of record not only chronicles history as it unfolds, it defines the times and social mores around it with its words. Ostensibly, future historians should be able to read one and establish an accurate, objective timeline of our day. Error-free historiology... all on one broadsheet.
Conventional wisdom has established the New York Times as the United States' newspaper of record. Long touted as a de facto source for news and opinions, the Times enjoys public and critical acclaim for its reporting, particularly its examination of the infamous Pentagon Papers and American involvement in Vietnam. Along with the Washington Post, it is seen around the world as a standard-bearer of American journalism.
It's a status that makes me shake my head.
Why? Because with few exceptions media corporations have been willing participants in the lies used to justify war with Iraq. They have reported blatant falsehoods while downplaying peaceful activism around the world. And no paper was more instrumental in forging a case for invasion than the New York Times.
The Times is the genesis seed of Plamegate, the Beltway scandal showing that associates of President Bush outed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame as a means of intimidating her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson dismantled Bush's 2003 claim that Iraq had sought "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria as crude forgeries (reason enough to threaten the life of his wife I suppose). Later, when the paper's WMD coverage was exposed as completely inaccurate, the paper said, "we consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight."
No follow-up has been issued thus far.
In an effort to "set the record straight" and stave its eroding readership and integrity, Times editor Bill Keller penned (with the help of his lawyers, no doubt) a memo to his staff last week attempting to steer the paper back on track. In it, Keller lays the paper's woes squarely on Miller's shoulders while promising to return the Times to glory. And amazingly, his rhetoric has been heralded by some as all they needed to hear. They actually believe the paper will tackle with renewed fervor the government's malfeasance and cover the interests of the people and not the shareholders. Like a bulldog released from its chain, chomping on the asses of corruption and secrecy.
I have news for you, Bill — we don't buy it.
The Keller Memo is an amalgam of mea culpa and issue dodging. Keller admits he let his responsibility to fair and accurate reporting collapse because (a) he didn't want to badmouth his predecessors, and (b) he felt exposing their lousy and duplicitous coverage of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would create a snowball effect in conjunction with the Jayson Blair fiasco. You remember Jayson Blair — the footnote in history that plagiarized articles and invented sources?
This sound like a benchmark of reporting to you?
I wish I could believe Keller, but the fact remains that his role in perpetuating war and lies makes him unsuitable to head a paper of record. Should he fire Judith Miller for accepting classified information, serving as a White House schill and protecting Dick Cheney from indictment? Absolutely, but the blame game doesn't end with her.
As editor, Keller approved of or oversaw every piece Miller generated. For him to not double-check the facts of articles trumpeting war is either outrageous or incredibly stupid — take your pick. As Amy Goodman of NPR noted, "[Miller] doesn't just write an article in the Times and it's immediately printed. It gets approved by editors. She often writes it with other reporters at the Times. It goes right on up."
So why stop at Judith Miller, because she makes a convenient scapegoat? A rogue reporter jailed and subpoenaed over a number of crimes and cover-ups is a handy fall guy, but it's simply too much to believe that she acted without any kind of authorization. Keller whines and sighs about what he would have or should have done, but here's what he didn't do - he didn't check up on or verify explosive stories that led us to war. And he did so because he did not want to. This was his editorial policy.
Let's face it - newspapers are in the business of making money, not disseminating important information to its readership. They answer to advertisers, sponsors and owners, all with specific agendas that preclude objectivity. Stories are routinely sanitized or glamorized to produce a desired effect. In this case, the job was to convince the masses that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, and in that respect they did so magnificently. Despite the undeniable images of millions protesting for peace. Despite the independent and foreign news sources that blew holes in the stories that papers like the Times sold as waterproof.
Keller actually believes that "with any luck [Times reporters] can resume [their] undistracted, full-throttle pursuit of putting out the best news report in the world." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The credibility of the Times has been annihilated, but the men responsible for steering its direction are still around. How can policy really change that way? And once the damage is done, how does it get repaired? The mainstream media took a bullet for the White House when it sided with lies and warmongering. Readership of traditional dailies are dropping precipitously because so few people believe the lies any longer. The Internet hasn't replaced the print medium because it's more accessible, it's done so because readers can find the truth behind America's shattered legacy instead of talking-points policy dictated to an AP staffer. The only way a newspaper can recover from all the lies is to completely confess its participation in duping the public. It's a Catch-22 they simply can't escape from.
The situation is widespread and shows no signs of stopping. Newspapers are just not committed to doing their jobs. Indictments of key Bush administration officials are pending and the Israeli/AIPAC spying, via the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, is figuring into the loop. Looks like Michael Ledeen is even connected to the forged Niger documents. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is on the verge of exposing the biggest criminal enterprise to ever be ferreted from the White House... and Richard Cohen of the Washington Postwants him to drop the matter and go home.
I hear people bag on blogs and Internet journalism constantly because they're not considered "legitimate." But you know what? That's fine. Getting a paycheck from working a desk in a newsroom is meaningless. When I wanted to learn about the reasons we went to war, I found them online. When I wanted to know if people felt the same way as me, I found their voices online.
Who exposed the WMD claims years ago? Who knew this war was a lie? Who pushed the current scandals nesting on Capitol Hill into the public eye?
When Bill Keller can state plainly his newspaper can accomplish that level of reporting, I'll consider picking up a copy of the Times. Until then, this paper of record belongs in the circular file.
Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.
Canon Fodder is a bi-weekly analysis of politics and society.
