War Fever at the NY Times: A Five-Day Log

[laststeamtrain]

War Fever at the Times: A Five-Day Log

These things occur by stealth, but not by chance. Plenty of reports of the Afghanistan war, the jihadists in Pakistan, U.S. bombing and efforts at rebuilding and the uncertain morale of our troops have appeared on the front page and elsewhere in recent weeks in the New York Times; yet not until the long pause of the administration over General McChrystal's request for a major escalation did the newspaper of record show what the pressure of its desires could amount to.

When five days pour forth a lead story on the way "a coordinated assault" of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan has caused a grave risk to American interests; a lead about the serious counter-offensive mounted by Pakistan; a flash suitable for any date but run as a lead concerning the heroin trade of the Taliban ("Vast Network Reaps Millions from Drugs"); the launching of a serial memoir by a reporter "Held Captive by the Taliban," which will extend to five parts; a flattering stoic-soldier profile of General McChrystal in the Times Magazine; a Pakistan follow-up suggesting that Pakistan's army's now fights well but is "meeting strong resistance" from the Taliban and cannot win without help; a sequence of three stories by different hands, tracing with approval the acquiescence of President Hamid Karzai in calls for a run-off (the very agreement the administration made a precondition for expanded American commitment); two op-eds over three days by military men not of the highest rank, urging escalation; and a reckless "scoop," filled sparsely with random and often anonymous interviews regarding the supposed discontents within the armed forces at the length of the administration's pause -- when all this is the fruit of five days' harvest at the Times, the conclusion draws itself. The New York Times wants a large escalation in Afghanistan. The paper has been made nervous by signs that the president may not make the big push for a bigger war; and they are showing what the rest of his time in office will be like if he does not cooperate.

A few highlights. ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/war-fever-at-the-emtimese_b_327159.html

[gratuitous]

1. War reporting means journalistic awards!

War is good for business, and reporting on the same old tiresome looting of the treasury by Wall Street greedheads is bo-o-o-ring! Much more interesting to get to cover stuff blowing up and our star-spangled fightin' men and women keepin' us safe and protecting our freedom (or whatever the casus belli du jour is). Sure, it sucks if you're the poor schmuck in the line of fire, but why don't you appreciate what a career boost this might be for a reporter? Is getting shot at really all about you, you, you?

Besides, with the economy in the shitter, more folks can be expected to sign up for the fabulous benefits offered in the military promotional brochures. Benefits that melt away like a snowfall in May when you try to take advantage of them. Isn't this fun?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. The same breathless reporting that got us into Iraq. Balloon boy Journalism