Something else the NY Times didn't print?

[cal04]

Stop dodging the awkward truth
Observer Comment Extra: The dirty tricks memo

US media commentator Norman Solomon reported last week on the global reaction to last Sunday's Observer story and asked why the story seemed to be downplayed in the American press. We reproduce his analysis here.
(snip)
Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in America's supposed paper of record. The New York Times - the single most influential media outlet in the United States - still had not printed anything about the story. How could that be? "Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," New York Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale said Wednesday night, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. "We could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from U.S. officials.

The Times opted not to relay the Observer's account, Smale told me. "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." She added: "We are still definitely looking into it. It's not that we're not." Belated coverage would be better than none at all. But readers should be suspicious of the failure of the New York Times to cover this story during the crucial first days after it broke. At some moments in history, when war and peace hang in the balance, journalism delayed is journalism denied.


Overall, the sparse U.S. coverage that did take place seemed eager to downplay the significance of the Observer's revelations. On March 4, the Washington Post ran a back-page 514-word article headlined "Spying Report No Shock to U.N.," while the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that began by emphasizing that US spy activities at the United Nations are "long-standing."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,910379,00.html

[kaygore]

1. So I guess it isn't news unless Chimp & Chimpetts say it is

[peacetalksforall]

2. News suppressed over a year ago is news that affected the election. nt

[sasha031]

3. Bernstein said years ago the CIA

worked in the new york times, I am trying to find the link, Chomsky claimed the same thing.

[spindrifter]

4. Maybe that's why

they had Jmiller. She always seemed to be at the weirdest places at the weirdest time--and how does one get selected to be an embed, huh?

[cal04]

5. Norman Solomon who wrote this, today wrote this

(except that the Observer did write that it was the NSA)
Last Sunday's revelation, published in The Observer, of a 'top secret' US memo, supposedly showing that the NSA has eavesdropped on members of the UN Security Council in recent weeks for insights into their negotiating positions on Iraq, is shocking. But perhaps not for the reasons that might first come to mind.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,910350,00.html

Norman Solomon: NSA Spied on U.N. Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq

Despite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats in New York before the invasion of
Iraq.

That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the
U.N. Security Councilto green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush’s illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.

Back then, after news of the NSA’s targeted spying at the
United Nationsbroke in the British press, major U.S. media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage -- or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA’s spying at the U.N. goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051227/cm_huffpost/012927

[peacetalksforall]

6. If the NYT is as involved in right wing operations as it seems they are,

it means dis-reality is alive and thriving. It means they have to pretend to be fair, they have right wing mouths preaching to the country that they are liberal, and we are finding that they are ACTIVISTS and OPERATIVES for the right wing!

I didn't believe they were upset about Judy Miller. Their decision to let her go was also dis-reality to make them look good. They had to pretend that they didn't know rhe extent of her 'imbededness' in the WH or Pentagon or CIA In the meantime, her bosses probably get direction every day.

They are liars, also. The Republican Party is a living lying entity.