4 ms·

What's the significance of this?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hyperbovine 13y ago
The NYT tends to criticize Obama less harshly than the WSJ. Of course, the exact opposite was true during the Bush years. No American paper commenting on the more interesting issue of why it took a UK news organization to uncover this.
chimeracoder 13y ago
The New York Times is known for being incredibly loath to criticize Obama, particularly on issues related to due process, wiretapping, the PATRIOT act, the "state secrets" doctrine, drone assasinations, etc[0]. The fact that Obama has been doing this isn't news; the fact that even the NYT is coming out and criticizing him for it is. The Wall Street Journal has historically been the polar opposite, from an editorial perspective. (Also, the other significance is that this is the editorial team, whose purpose is to opine - this is not the news team, which are supposed to attempt to remain 'objective'). [0] Basically, a large part of the foreign policy for which Bush was criticized during his presidency and which Obama has doubled down on.
- kmfrk 13y ago
  Criticizing a president for wire-tapping puts the NYT in an incredibly awkward spot, as they forced their reporter to shelve the Bush wire-tapping scoop until after the 2004 election, back when privacy violations were still something people could get up in arms about.
jpdoctor 13y ago
> What's the significance of this? I cannot remember (I'm 49yo) the NYT ever going from endorsing a candidate [1] to "The administration has now lost all credibility." That's quite a fall politically. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obama-for-president.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obam... Edit: I have to agree with them, but I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration.
- dkulchenko 13y ago
  > I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration. Why would it? It's pretty obvious Obama's complicit in this - why would he fire those who are implementing policies that he's supporting?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    In politics, you fire those below you to save yourself. Even if they did right by you.
    - jellicle 13y ago
      People would only be fired if this program is scandalous to the American public. All the evidence suggests that the American public doesn't mind privacy violations as long you say "child pornographer" and "terrorist" a lot when you talk about them.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        Justifications for some, sacrificial firings for others. Just like Abu Ghraib.
  - jpdoctor 13y ago
    When presented with new data, some people change course. I am hoping Obama falls into that class.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      New data? Do you really think this is news to Obama?
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        Maybe the 'new data' in this case is how we react to finding out about the existence of the programs.
forgotAgain 13y ago
If the NYT publicly states that his administration "has now lost all credibility" it should be significant. They are the flagship liberal / progressive newspaper in the country. Their blunt outrage signifies an important element of his party's support is rebelling against the President's actions. However he will probably be able to just shrug it off. US citizens have become too fat and lazy to give a damn about anything but tax cuts and their entitlement. They've forgotten that this is still a world where you have to fight for what is important.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

The NYT tends to criticize Obama less harshly than the WSJ. Of course, the exact opposite was true during the Bush years. No American paper commenting on the more interesting issue of why it took a UK news organization to uncover this.

chimeracoder 13y ago

The New York Times is known for being incredibly loath to criticize Obama, particularly on issues related to due process, wiretapping, the PATRIOT act, the "state secrets" doctrine, drone assasinations, etc[0]. The fact that Obama has been doing this isn't news; the fact that even the NYT is coming out and criticizing him for it is. The Wall Street Journal has historically been the polar opposite, from an editorial perspective. (Also, the other significance is that this is the editorial team, whose purpose is to opine - this is not the news team, which are supposed to attempt to remain 'objective'). [0] Basically, a large part of the foreign policy for which Bush was criticized during his presidency and which Obama has doubled down on.

kmfrk 13y ago
Criticizing a president for wire-tapping puts the NYT in an incredibly awkward spot, as they forced their reporter to shelve the Bush wire-tapping scoop until after the 2004 election, back when privacy violations were still something people could get up in arms about.

jpdoctor 13y ago

> What's the significance of this? I cannot remember (I'm 49yo) the NYT ever going from endorsing a candidate [1] to "The administration has now lost all credibility." That's quite a fall politically. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obama-for-president.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obam... Edit: I have to agree with them, but I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration.

dkulchenko 13y ago
> I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration. Why would it? It's pretty obvious Obama's complicit in this - why would he fire those who are implementing policies that he's supporting?
- philwelch 13y ago
  In politics, you fire those below you to save yourself. Even if they did right by you.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    People would only be fired if this program is scandalous to the American public. All the evidence suggests that the American public doesn't mind privacy violations as long you say "child pornographer" and "terrorist" a lot when you talk about them.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Justifications for some, sacrificial firings for others. Just like Abu Ghraib.
- jpdoctor 13y ago
  When presented with new data, some people change course. I am hoping Obama falls into that class.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    New data? Do you really think this is news to Obama?
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      Maybe the 'new data' in this case is how we react to finding out about the existence of the programs.

forgotAgain 13y ago

If the NYT publicly states that his administration "has now lost all credibility" it should be significant. They are the flagship liberal / progressive newspaper in the country. Their blunt outrage signifies an important element of his party's support is rebelling against the President's actions. However he will probably be able to just shrug it off. US citizens have become too fat and lazy to give a damn about anything but tax cuts and their entitlement. They've forgotten that this is still a world where you have to fight for what is important.