4 ms·

The hypocrisy of the New York Times in printing this is shocking. The newspaper which did so much to whip up hysteria during the years of the Bush administrati

The hypocrisy of the New York Times in printing this is shocking. The newspaper which did so much to whip up hysteria during the years of the Bush administration now trying to raise concerns about the inmates of Guantanamo is shockingly cynical. It's a shameful state of affairs that our political process is so broken we cannot deal with this situation in a civilized fashion, with investigations, trials and an end result. Instead we live in an Orwellian state of perpetual war, one which the New York Times was happy to goad us into back in the days when they actually sold newspapers and profited from a nation's feelings of hurt and lust for vengeance.

droopyEyelids 14y ago
I wonder if this indicates a change in the NYT's moral leadership, or if Washington is ready to close gitmo and wants to drive public opinion in a way that'll make it more acceptable politically. I suppose we'll be able to tell by whether the NYT starts asking the hard questions on drones in the next few months. And by the way, I'm all for hypocrisy when it means moving against the cruelty and injustice of the past.
cjh_ 14y ago
In this case I think the hypocrisy is positive; I would much rather NYT be hypocritical by speaking out against Guantanamo rather than holding their old position.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Yes this is a great point. One thing that I don't want to fall into the habit of doing, and I got close to in my initial point, in my disgust for their hypocrisy is something I see as a problem in modern politics. Hypocrisy isn't the greatest sin in the world, but we sometimes act like it is and make the consequences of hypocrisy (or changing your mind) so great (electoral defeat) that people will hold onto a bad policy and continue bad or harmful action in favor of not flip flopping or being hypocritical. So you make a good point, and it's better that they at least attempt to remedy some of the harm they have contributed to, than hold onto a morally bankrupt position.
  - acjohnson55 14y ago
    Hypocrisy and changing ones mind aren't the same thing. To me hypocrisy implies playing both sides of an issue at the same time, or disingenuously trying to appear to have changed your mind, when you're pursuing an ulterior motive. Maybe the NYT is doing this, I don't know. But if so, it's more than simply changing their minds.
natrius 14y ago
The events you've outlined don't require intellectual dishonesty at all. It's possible to have thought war was a prudent course of action in 2003, then to have changed one's mind by 2013.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  I think it's pretty well documented by now that the NYT advocated for positions which they knew to be false and passed on information they knew the source of but failed to notify the reader of in ways that deliberately misled readers, during this period. So, while you're right that one can hold one position then the other, I think that doesn't invalidate their mendacity. Also hypocrisy is still a valid description of advocating a position which created this suffering then pointing out that this suffering is terrible and that someone should do something. However, I do think (see my comment later in the thread) that it has to be remembered that hypocrisy isn't the worst sin one can commit, and if they can be as effective in moving us to the next phase in all of this as they were in pushing the agenda forward which led to this situation in the first place that's a net good thing.
- cma 14y ago
  Not to mention the question of whether a newspaper have "a" mind...
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    They may not have a mind but they have a voice. And the NYT has or at least had a particularly influential voice.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - nunb 14y ago
    they have editors, and the editors are there to give it a cohesive voice, which implies a mind.
- mynameishere 14y ago
jebblue 14y ago
>>The newspaper which did so much to whip up hysteria during the years of the Bush administration I lived through those years, I don't recall people running around the streets of American cities in a state of hysteria.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  We all lived through those years - or anyone old enough to be commenting on here did - and I disagree. I think the media climate, which is what we're talking about when we are discussing newspapers, was absolutely one of hysteria. The march to war and the support for remedies such as Guantanamo. If the American media landscape and political climate was not one of hysteria when we made such terrible choices then it speaks far worse of us than the alternative.
- asveikau 14y ago
  I remember those times as well. I remember how they convinced so many people that the biggest issue facing the United States was Saddam Hussein ... Even liberals were buying it, or prefacing their statements with "I know he's a bad guy who has to go right away, but..." It was pretty crazy. Or, how about that they successfully convinced the American voter to elect more Republicans in 2002 because ... Saddam. Makes no sense right? But it worked. It was successful enough to convince the opposition party to also support the war. Let's not forget that Dick Cheney's office leaked a fake story to the New York Times, then cited that story as a reason for going to war... People forget that now, and just how fucked up it is.
  - jebblue 14y ago
    Iraq span multiple presidents: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript... "The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them."
    - 14y ago
raganwald 14y ago
The hypocrisy of the New York Times in printing this is shocking. As opposed to thinking it but refusing to print it because it would involve conflicting with something they printed four or eight or twelve years ago? I would hope that a newspaper could be trusted to reverse the opinions it prints.
ncallaway 14y ago
A) It is not hypocritical to change ones opinions given time and new information. Hypocrisy is doing something you advocate against while you are an advocate against it. Believing otherwise is to argue against the scientific method itself. B) Is it even a conflicting opinion to think a certain war may be just, but some actions taken as part of that war are unjust? One example of such a situation may be the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Many people argue that the war itself was just, and worth fighting, while the Japanese internment camps were a grave mistake. Perhaps they thought the Iraq war was righteous thing, while thinking the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay far from just. C) To be Orwellian is to deny the past. Has the NYT ever claimed they didn't take a stance that they did? Have they denied printing those words that supported the war? If they haven't rewritten history they haven't been Orwellian. Please don't cry wolf on things like this, because we need to credibly make these arguments when something really is Orwellian.
alan_cx 14y ago
Maybe because I am British I have a very, very low opinion of the media, newspapers in particular, but... Welcome to the world of the media and press.

droopyEyelids 14y ago

I wonder if this indicates a change in the NYT's moral leadership, or if Washington is ready to close gitmo and wants to drive public opinion in a way that'll make it more acceptable politically. I suppose we'll be able to tell by whether the NYT starts asking the hard questions on drones in the next few months. And by the way, I'm all for hypocrisy when it means moving against the cruelty and injustice of the past.

cjh_ 14y ago

In this case I think the hypocrisy is positive; I would much rather NYT be hypocritical by speaking out against Guantanamo rather than holding their old position.

richardjordan 14y ago
Yes this is a great point. One thing that I don't want to fall into the habit of doing, and I got close to in my initial point, in my disgust for their hypocrisy is something I see as a problem in modern politics. Hypocrisy isn't the greatest sin in the world, but we sometimes act like it is and make the consequences of hypocrisy (or changing your mind) so great (electoral defeat) that people will hold onto a bad policy and continue bad or harmful action in favor of not flip flopping or being hypocritical. So you make a good point, and it's better that they at least attempt to remedy some of the harm they have contributed to, than hold onto a morally bankrupt position.
- acjohnson55 14y ago
  Hypocrisy and changing ones mind aren't the same thing. To me hypocrisy implies playing both sides of an issue at the same time, or disingenuously trying to appear to have changed your mind, when you're pursuing an ulterior motive. Maybe the NYT is doing this, I don't know. But if so, it's more than simply changing their minds.

natrius 14y ago

The events you've outlined don't require intellectual dishonesty at all. It's possible to have thought war was a prudent course of action in 2003, then to have changed one's mind by 2013.

richardjordan 14y ago
I think it's pretty well documented by now that the NYT advocated for positions which they knew to be false and passed on information they knew the source of but failed to notify the reader of in ways that deliberately misled readers, during this period. So, while you're right that one can hold one position then the other, I think that doesn't invalidate their mendacity. Also hypocrisy is still a valid description of advocating a position which created this suffering then pointing out that this suffering is terrible and that someone should do something. However, I do think (see my comment later in the thread) that it has to be remembered that hypocrisy isn't the worst sin one can commit, and if they can be as effective in moving us to the next phase in all of this as they were in pushing the agenda forward which led to this situation in the first place that's a net good thing.
cma 14y ago
Not to mention the question of whether a newspaper have "a" mind...
- richardjordan 14y ago
  They may not have a mind but they have a voice. And the NYT has or at least had a particularly influential voice.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- nunb 14y ago
  they have editors, and the editors are there to give it a cohesive voice, which implies a mind.
mynameishere 14y ago

jebblue 14y ago

>>The newspaper which did so much to whip up hysteria during the years of the Bush administration I lived through those years, I don't recall people running around the streets of American cities in a state of hysteria.

richardjordan 14y ago
We all lived through those years - or anyone old enough to be commenting on here did - and I disagree. I think the media climate, which is what we're talking about when we are discussing newspapers, was absolutely one of hysteria. The march to war and the support for remedies such as Guantanamo. If the American media landscape and political climate was not one of hysteria when we made such terrible choices then it speaks far worse of us than the alternative.
asveikau 14y ago
I remember those times as well. I remember how they convinced so many people that the biggest issue facing the United States was Saddam Hussein ... Even liberals were buying it, or prefacing their statements with "I know he's a bad guy who has to go right away, but..." It was pretty crazy. Or, how about that they successfully convinced the American voter to elect more Republicans in 2002 because ... Saddam. Makes no sense right? But it worked. It was successful enough to convince the opposition party to also support the war. Let's not forget that Dick Cheney's office leaked a fake story to the New York Times, then cited that story as a reason for going to war... People forget that now, and just how fucked up it is.
- jebblue 14y ago
  Iraq span multiple presidents: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript... "The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them."
  - 14y ago

raganwald 14y ago

The hypocrisy of the New York Times in printing this is shocking. As opposed to thinking it but refusing to print it because it would involve conflicting with something they printed four or eight or twelve years ago? I would hope that a newspaper could be trusted to reverse the opinions it prints.

ncallaway 14y ago

A) It is not hypocritical to change ones opinions given time and new information. Hypocrisy is doing something you advocate against while you are an advocate against it. Believing otherwise is to argue against the scientific method itself. B) Is it even a conflicting opinion to think a certain war may be just, but some actions taken as part of that war are unjust? One example of such a situation may be the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Many people argue that the war itself was just, and worth fighting, while the Japanese internment camps were a grave mistake. Perhaps they thought the Iraq war was righteous thing, while thinking the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay far from just. C) To be Orwellian is to deny the past. Has the NYT ever claimed they didn't take a stance that they did? Have they denied printing those words that supported the war? If they haven't rewritten history they haven't been Orwellian. Please don't cry wolf on things like this, because we need to credibly make these arguments when something really is Orwellian.

alan_cx 14y ago

Maybe because I am British I have a very, very low opinion of the media, newspapers in particular, but... Welcome to the world of the media and press.