2 ms·
This was the print era. The honest stories were buried or delayed. This is what you’re referencing/ “ Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to
by graeme 4y ago
This was the print era. The honest stories were buried or delayed. This is what you’re referencing/
“ Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen's ''C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports,'' which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start, and even then was interred on Page B10.‘
Nowadays you can link any story but back then position mattered enormously.
Timing too. A key report after the war matters much less
- itsdrewmiller 4y agoYou're moving the goalposts though - you said to cite any articles at all, which I did, and now you're complaining about their positioning in the paper. As I said in my original comment the coverage was slanted to the point that it was scandalous (look at the link!) but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". The NYT fucked up but it wasn't pure propaganda.
- graeme 4y agoFair enough, I intentionally was a little hyperbolic to see what the strongest evidence against my position was. >but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". I do not, however, think this is true in the case of the Iraq War. Once we get into quantity rather than mere existence, we have to consider positioning in the case of the print paper. It may as well not have existed given the positioning and delay. The editorial team buried their reporters' work when it didn't agree with their slant