RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "NPR’s David Folkenflik has a revealing new look at what I have long believed is one of the most important journalistic stories of the last decade: The New York Times‘ 2004 decision, at the behest of George W. Bush himself, to suppress for 15 months (through Bush’s re-election) its reporters’ discovery that the NSA was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants."

National Intelligence Director James Clapper. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
National Intelligence Director James Clapper. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


Eric Lichtblau on James Risen's NSA Reporting: "He Had a Gun to Their Head"

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

08 June 14

 

PR’s David Folkenflik has a revealing new look at what I have long believed is one of the most important journalistic stories of the last decade: The New York Times‘ 2004 decision, at the behest of George W. Bush himself, to suppress for 15 months (through Bush’s re-election) its reporters’ discovery that the NSA was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Folkenflik’s NPR story confirms what has long been clear: The only reason the Times eventually published that article was because one of its reporters, James Risen, had become so frustrated that he wrote a book that was about to break the story, leaving the paper with no choice (Risen’s co-reporter, Eric Lichtblau, is quoted this way: “‘He had a gun to their head,’ Lichtblau told Frontline. ‘They are really being forced to reconsider: The paper is going to look pretty bad’ if Risen’s book disclosed the wiretapping program before the Times“).

As Folkenflik notes, this episode was one significant reason Edward Snowden purposely excluded the Times from his massive trove of documents. In an interview with Folkenflik, the paper’s new executive editor, Dean Baquet, describes the paper’s exclusion from the Snowden story as “really painful.” But, as I documented in my book and in recent interviews, Baquet has his own checkered history in suppressing plainly newsworthy stories at the government’s request, including a particularly inexcusable 2007 decision, when he was the managing editor of The Los Angeles Times, to kill a story based on AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein’s revelations that the NSA had built secret rooms at AT&T to siphon massive amounts of domestic telephone traffic.

In his NPR interview, Baquet insists that he has had a serious change of heart on such questions as a result of the last year of NSA revelations:

[Baquet] says the experience has proved that news executives are often unduly deferential to seemingly authoritative warnings unaccompanied by hard evidence.

I am much, much, much more skeptical of the government’s entreaties not to publish today than I was ever before,” Baquet said in a wide-ranging interview. . . .

Last week, Baquet told me the Snowden revelations yielded two key insights for American journalists. “First off,” Baquet said, “the public wants this information. Secondly, it does not destroy everything if the information comes out” . . . .

Baquet did say there were a few instances while he was managing editor in which he regretted holding back details from the public due to ominous warnings from intelligence officials over potential consequences. “The government makes it sound like something really large, and in retrospect, it wasn’t quite as large,” he said.

The Snowden revelations published in The Guardian and The Washington Post, he said, only underscored his conviction.

“I would love to be able to tell you it wasn’t good,” Baquet said. “But it was great. It was important, groundbreaking work. I wish we had it.”

Only time will tell whether Baquet’s proclamations on this issue result in any actual change for the paper, but it does shed light on an important question I heard many times over the last month as we approached the one-year anniversary of the first NSA story: what has changed as a result of the last year of disclosures?

One should not expect any change to come from the U.S. government itself (which includes Congress), whose strategy in such cases is to enact the pretext of “reform” so as to placate public anger, protect the system from any serious weakening, and allow President Obama to go before the country and the world and give a pretty speech about how the U.S. heard their anger and re-calibrated the balance between privacy and security. Any new law that comes from the radically corrupted political class in DC will either be largely empty, or worse. The purpose will be to shield the NSA from real reform.

There are, though, numerous other avenues with the real potential to engender serious limits on the NSA’s surveillance powers, including the self-interested though genuine panic of the U.S. tech industry over how surveillance will impede their future business prospects, the efforts of other countries to undermine U.S. hegemony over the internet, the newfound emphasis on privacy protections from internet companies worldwide, and, most of all, the increasing use of encryption technology by users around the world that poses genuine obstacles to state surveillance. Those are all far, far more promising avenues than any bill Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss will let Congress cough up.

But beyond surveillance and privacy, one of the goals of this NSA reporting (at least from my perspective) was to trigger a desperately needed debate about journalism itself, and the proper relationship of journalists to those who wield political and economic power. The question of why The New York Times was excluded from this story led to a serious public examination for the first time of its decision to suppress that NSA story, which in turn led to public recriminations over the generally excessive deference U.S. media outlets have shown the U.S. government.

Obviously, that debate is far from resolved; witness the endless parade of American journalists who, without any apparent embarrassment, cheered Michael Kinsley’s decree that for publication questions, “that decision must ultimately be made by the government.” But Baquet’s very public expression of regret over past suppression decisions, and his observation that “news executives are often unduly deferential to seemingly authoritative warnings unaccompanied by hard evidence” is evidence of the fruits of that debate.

That national security state officials routinely mislead and deceive the public should never have even been in serious doubt in the first place – certainly not for journalists, and especially now after the experience of the Iraq War. That fact — that official pronouncements merit great skepticism rather than reverence — should be (but plainly is not) fundamental to how journalists view the world.

More evidence for that is provided by a Washington Post column today by one of the national security state’s favorite outlets, David Ignatius. Ignatius interviewed the chronic deceiver, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who now “says it appears the impact [of Snowden's leaking] may be less than once feared because ‘it doesn’t look like he [Snowden] took as much’ as first thought.” Clapper specifically casts serious doubt on the U.S. government’s prior claim that Snowden ”had compromised the communications networks that make up the military’s command and control system”; instead, “officials now think that dire forecast may have been too extreme.” Ignatius — citing an anonymous “senior intelligence official” (who may or may not be Clapper) — also announces that the government has yet again revised its rank speculation about how many documents Snowden took: “This batch of probably downloaded material is about 1.5 million documents, the senior official said. That’s below an earlier estimate of 1.77 million documents.”

Most notable is Ignatius’ summary of the government’s attempt to claim Snowden seriously compromised the security of the U.S.:

Pressed to explain what damage Snowden’s revelations had done, the official was guarded, saying that there was “damage in foreign relations” and that the leaks had “poisoned [NSA’s] relations with commercial providers.” He also said that terrorist groups had carefully studied the disclosures, turning more to anonymizers, encryption and use of couriers to shield communications.

The senior official wouldn’t respond to repeated questions about whether the intelligence community has noted any changes in behavior by either the Russian or Chinese governments, in possible response to information they may have gleaned from Snowden’s revelations.

In other words, the only specific damage they can point to is from the anger that other people around the world have about what the U.S. government has done and the fact that people will not want to buy U.S. tech products if they fear (for good reason) that those companies collaborate with the NSA. But, as usual, there is zero evidence provided (as opposed to bald, self-serving assertions) of any harm to genuine national security concerns (i.e., the ability to monitor anyone planning actual violent attacks).

As is always the case, the stream of fear-mongering and alarmist warnings issued by the government to demonize a whistleblower proves to be false and without any basis, and the same is true for accusations made about the revelations themselves (“In January, [Mike] Rogers said that the report concluded that most of the documents Snowden had access to concerned ‘vital operations of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force’” – AP: Lawmakers: Snowden’s Leaks May Endanger US Troops“). But none of that has stopped countless U.S. journalists from mindlessly citing each one of the latest evidence-free official claims as sacred fact.

Dean Baquet’s epiphany about the U.S. government and the American media — “news executives are often unduly deferential to seemingly authoritative warnings unaccompanied by hard evidence” — is long overdue, but better late than never. Let us hope that it signals an actual change in behavior.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+56 # ericlipps 2014-06-08 12:08
If the media simply take the government's word that publishing a given story would be "harmful," then we have de facto government censorship without the mess and fuss of a Ministry of Truth (or, I suppose, in the U.S., a Department).

Of course, since 9/11 the media have been especially terrified to appear to be "unpatriotic." This hasn't stemmed the flood of right-wing rhetoric about media treason; with a Democrat in the White House these people have simply shifted from regarding any criticism of the administration as disloyal to seeing failure to condemn the administration in that light. Which ought to, but has not, teach the media that they have nothing to gain from bending the knee to anyone.
 
 
+30 # ralphnovy 2014-06-08 13:08
I applaud the RSN team's call for curbing ad hominem vitriol -- but I find that a bit ironic in view of the vitriolic ad hominem attacks on Glenn Greenwald by so many MSM people.

In any event, the article at hand is informative and more generous-spirit ed (toward Baquet and the NYT muckety-mucks in general) than I might be inclined to be.
 
 
-51 # wolf 2014-06-08 13:13
So says the man who has a wallet pointed as his head, and a prize, and fame, and glory.


When in history did a hero ever receive an award while engaged in the act of being a hero?

It seems to me that those who truly are heroes do the work without need for glory; rather like say, the man stuck in Russia, or the one stuck in London. Juxtapose that with the man running around debating officials, promoting books, and receiving prizes and tell me Glenn Greenwald is anything but another money whore who has found a treasure trove in the NSA document trove.


And to address Ralph above - calling a legitimate criticism and concern about someone's credibility is NOT an ad-hominem fallacy. Yours is then a fallacy of what, Construction? I think its more likely a non-sequitor though...I can't be sure, I don't have a sufficient understanding of the terminology to immediately articulate the precise nature of your fallacy in falsely attributing legitimate questions of credibility as a fallacy.
 
 
+42 # dickbd 2014-06-08 15:13
If Greenwald gets a little fame, money, and an award or two, more power to him, in my opinion. He may not have risked what Snowden did, but he has taken risks. (As Stephen Colbert said, "Have someone else start your car.")

And it strikes me as a shame that we automatically think that honest citizens have to fear actions by the government. I well recall when Jeramy Scahill--anothe r hero that received a little fame and awards!--appear ed on the Bill Maher Show, Jay Leno was on and commented on his dim prospects for survival, clearly with the American government in mind.
 
 
+27 # Working Class 2014-06-08 16:40
You sure use a lot of words to say nothing Wolf.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-06-11 10:23
Wolf.... as usual, I see a lot of double-talk but nothing substantive in your post.
This column is about David Folkenflik's revealing new look about James Risen forcing The Times to come clean about the fact that the NSA was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. A wallet has nothing to do with this issue.
 
 
+26 # Vegan_Girl 2014-06-08 13:27
.... So, news media will change? Or, they'll admit to have a problem (like Congress) and will pretend to address it (like Congress) via superficial, cosmetic changes or worse (like Congress). And they will get away with it too, (like Congress) thanks to the willful ignorance of the American Public.
 
 
-45 # arquebus 2014-06-08 13:41
Perhaps someone can answer a question. Our Constitution stipulates that a couple of its obligations is "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,". There is also the stricture against "unreasonable" searches. Seems to be a bit of a conflict there...difficu lt to defend against an enemy when you don't know who or where they are. We know there are people who would be more than willing to set off an A-Bomb in the middle of Times Square (and go to claim their spot in Paradise) of they could get one.

It makes me as uncomfortable as any of the angry, ideologically driven voices at the idea of warrantless searches. But, we've been attacked twice in 75 years with the resultant loss of live in the thousands because our intelligence gathering was not up to the task at hand. I, for one, would prefer that we not have such attacks again.

So the question--how should the US Government fulfill its duty to provide for the common defense if it is not allowed to use every resource available to find and somehow isolate these lethal individuals.
 
 
+45 # REDPILLED 2014-06-08 14:15
You wrote: "But, we've been attacked twice in 75 years with the resultant loss of live in the thousands because our intelligence gathering was not up to the task at hand."

Bush & Company were given ample warnings prior to 9/11/01. On August 6, 2001, he was given the Presidential Daily Brief stating that "Osama bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S." His response to the CIA messenger: "All right, you've covered your ass." Google FBI agent Colleen Rowley and read how she vainly tried to get her supervisors to listen to what she had found out in advance of 9/11. The intelligence gathering was all there. The Bush administration refused to act on it. They wanted a reason to invade Iraq.
 
 
-31 # arquebus 2014-06-08 14:38
Did anyone have time, place, method or just general information. Intelligence that doesn't provide the essentials is pointless.
 
 
+11 # curmudgeon 2014-06-08 22:47
Redpill gave you enough info to answer your criticisms if you take the time ...instead of .....
 
 
+2 # jcdav 2014-06-09 20:02
And your point Mr. I hate warrentless searches? I don't suppose you would consider for one patriotic moment that the Bush/Chaney machine knew and allowed (if not willfully aided) 911...Unass and do your own research...if your dimming vision will still allow it. Oh BTW from your comment about needing specifics, does that justify dragnet warrentless searches?
 
 
+2 # dquandle 2014-06-09 20:21
None of the massive surveillance on US citizens and the rest of the world, has yielded time, place, or method for any subsequent terrorist attack.
 
 
+37 # REDPILLED 2014-06-08 14:19
Ask yourself this question: Why do some people want to kill Americans? No, they don't "hate us for our freedoms" (which have eroded under both Bush & Obomber). Most of the world now, correctly, views the U.S. as the greatest threat to paece. The world's greatest terrorist is the United States, having caused the death of more than 15 million people since 1945, despite its existence never being threated by any of the nations it has invaded or overthrown.
 
 
+20 # dandevries 2014-06-08 21:32
"Most of the world now, correctly, views the U.S. as the greatest threat to peace."

I certainly do, and I don't think I'm the only American who does.
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2014-06-11 10:28
Oh for the Love of God...redpilled ... Give it a rest. Yes, we know how much you hate this here United States. So please, move out of your mother's basement and go live in one of those freedom loving countries like Syria, Somalia, Russia, etc. and see how long you'd last posting this sort of drek about them.
 
 
+25 # reiverpacific 2014-06-08 14:35
Quoting arquebus:
Perhaps someone can answer a question. Our Constitution stipulates that a couple of its obligations is "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,". There is also the stricture against "unreasonable" searches. Seems to be a bit of a conflict there...difficult to defend against an enemy when you don't know who or where they are. We know there are people who would be more than willing to set off an A-Bomb in the middle of Times Square (and go to claim their spot in Paradise) of they could get one.

It makes me as uncomfortable as any of the angry, ideologically driven voices at the idea of warrantless searches. But, we've been attacked twice in 75 years with the resultant loss of live in the thousands because our intelligence gathering was not up to the task at hand. I, for one, would prefer that we not have such attacks again.

So the question--how should the US Government fulfill its duty to provide for the common defense if it is not allowed to use every resource available to find and somehow isolate these lethal individuals.

Most of the "Enemies" of the US are countries where it shouldn't have been infesting in the first place.
+The US is adept a manufacturing enemies -including inside it's own borders- just to keep the Military/Indust rial/Spy industry profitable.
Must look at the bigger picture now, mustn't we?!
 
 
+17 # nice2bgreat 2014-06-08 15:00
.
The key to understanding how to interpret the Constitution and how the government may act regards conflict.

The Ten Commandments are similar in this way. Violation of any commandment is a sin. In God's eyes, no one commandment carries any greater weight than any other; there is no gradation; they are all sins.

In the Constitution, Each Amendment has the same authority. If one runs into conflict with another -- unless explicitly delineated that one takes precedent over another or others -- whatever is in conflict, is, therefore, unconstitutiona l.

Your freedom granted by the Constitution ends when your actions, which may in some cases be a simple right and freedom, deprives another of his/her rights; even when an act is constitutional in some circumstances, it may not be Constitutional in all circumstances.

If providing for the common defense and promoting general welfare involves unreasonable searches, etc., by definition, it is unconstitutiona l.

The government must find another way. And yes, that other way may involve greater risk.

Because the first task of government -- before individual safety -- is to preserve liberties by defending the Constitution.
.
 
 
+11 # Pikewich 2014-06-08 23:25
".difficult to defend against an enemy when you don't know who or where they are. We know there are people who would be more than willing to set off an A-Bomb in the middle of Times Square (and go to claim their spot in Paradise) of they could get one."

Be afraid. They are out to blow us up with a-bombs.

Can you name anyone? Sure there are people who hate us. These days most of them hate us for what our wars are doing to them.

This is the line of fear mongering being driven into the minds and hearts of the public.

And I would say, "providing for the defense..." does not include sucking up every communication and killing people because they MAY commit a crime in the future.

That is offense.

But a simple statistical analysis is helpful.

Our government has misused the 2 events of the last 75 years as an excuse to wage warfare anywhere against anybody at any time it chooses, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the displacement of millions.

Several thousand US soldiers have died since, probably double the number of those killed on 911, if you don't wish to count brown people on the other side of the planet.

It is a big mistake to think the way to approach this is to "kill them all and let god sort them out". People become terrorists when you blow their family members to bits with drone hellfire missiles.

Perhaps if we stopped killing and maiming so many of them, we would have fewer of these enemies?
 
 
+7 # Doubter 2014-06-09 12:32
Fewer enemies might lead to fewer lucrative "defense" contracts and who wants that? (except for we poor schmucks who have to pay for it - one way or another)
 
 
+1 # dquandle 2014-06-09 20:25
Blasphemy!
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-06-11 10:32
Did it ever occur to you people that the reason that we are engaged in so much violence is because YOU MEN are in charge in EVERY COUNTRY. Still playing those little boy games only with larger and more lethal guns that are still toys in your minds.
The US is no ore nor less militaristic then any other country. It's just that we can afford bigger toys.
 
 
+6 # dascher 2014-06-09 07:51
"Obviously" we should follow orders. The Government must always be right. We should burn that silly "Constitution" thingy too as it just gets in the way of the government doing its job.

That seems to have worked out very well for the Germans.
 
 
+5 # dquandle 2014-06-09 20:20
attacks on the US are blowback for decades of criminally murderous and atrocious "foreign policy" by whatever criminal regime happens to occupy Washington at the moment. To prevent the waging of terrorist attacks upon the US, the US needs to first stop engaging in massive state sponsored terrorism, itself. The Brzezinski/Reag an axis, created armed and funded the Mujahideen and similar organizations which went on to become Al Qaeda and birthed the Taliban. But that was after years of murder, torture and repression initiated and paid for by the US throughout the mid-east in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc. etc. a vast amount of which continues today. The US paid for murderous thugs to attack protesters in Bahrain and Egypt within the past couple of months. Witness the insertion of Obama/Bush/Clin ton's current favorite dictator in Egypt, and continuing billions and weapons for Saudi Arabia, whose appalling government in turn supports the extremist perverted factions of Islam that have arisen.

People hate the US because its filthy regimes and policies have caused them extraordinary harm and misery.

The defense of the American people starts by ceasing to wage murderous war, for oil and profit, on the rest of the world.
 
 
-2 # bmiluski 2014-06-11 10:34
And yet..dquandle.. ..people still flock to our shores to live and prosper here. I don't see too many people dying (literally)to get into Russia, China, India, etc.
 
 
+2 # Jim Young 2014-06-10 19:21
Read Gen Hayden very carefully, he implied they were totally surprised by 9/11, but never described researching all the information they already had, but didn't put together (I think because because they were too occupied with everything but looking out for terrorists).

It's like his misdirection in how he described the lack of dissenters within the NSA, when 5 very highly placed ones dissented so much that they attempted to prosecute/frame one of them, Thomas Drake as a whistle blower (since when do you frame/shoot the messengers).

He very carefully said no one in NSA invited into the "Program" expressed anything but extreme enthusiasm. The deceptions were many top NSA officials weren't "invited" into the "Program," and the "Program" he seemed to refer to was just the small Prism part of all the illegal "programs" they were doing. It implied Prism was the "Program," as if nothing else existed, and disguised who the officials invited into the program were (certainly no invitations were made to the top whistle blowers if he was telling the "truth."
 
 
+25 # reiverpacific 2014-06-08 13:43
Proof-positive that Snowden made a wise choice in contacting Greenwald/The Guardian when he was ready to lay his files on somebody a source -outside the US Owner-media milieu naturally- that would actually PUBLISH and expose the "NSA's" shenanigans.
No surprise that Dimwits, in the true Bush tradition, would act with the NY Times to suppress such information until after his second stolen election. After all, it was daddy Bush who negotiated with the Ayatollah Khomeini's US Embassy hostage takers to have them held a bit longer until until his boss, Ronnie Ray-gun's election was assured, in spite of Carter doing all the work to have them released. Like daddy, like dim-Son.
Baquet's "Serious change of heart" is just a nice way of saying "I had my finger pointed skywards and it didn't show me which way the wind was blowing that time, so I did what I always do; go with the status-quo".
I'm usually pretty critical of NPR itself for milquetoast, safe, P.C. journalism and I haven't heard this interview -I pretty much abandoned them several years ago- so it's good to know that at least one of their reporters is trying to their job.
BTW, is Risen still with the NYT?
And @ "wolf", who else had the bollocks to take Greenwald's path? He even came to the US against much cautionary advice to receive his Pulitzer.
In this culture, it's liars, conformists and hate mongers who are most highly paid.
Compare his income from all sources to Sean Hannity or Limpballs, just for example.
 
 
+18 # James Marcus 2014-06-08 13:51
These are important revelations and conclusions.
Our Government's Constitutional dysfunctionalit y is deliberate, entrenched, self-sustaining and pervasive about hiding, Covering up , what it is doing.
This leaves 'Legal recourse' hardly a reasonable means of correcting that which is 'Criminally Astray'. All Government Branches, and therefore the entire Checks-and-Bala nces system, have been adequately, if not completely, Compromised.
Add Propaganda, and a thoroughly compromised Media, (this article to wit), and you have a Democracy in Death throws (with no one admitting it).
Now, What?
 
 
+8 # sunflower333 2014-06-08 16:20
The political class was exposed to military grade anthrax.

Non-state actors became targets by the millions.

WMD in Iraq, torture, mass surveillance, assassinations, political corruption, climate destruction getting worse day by day.

Who are committing these crimes?

What are we going to do about it?

Start with encryption. It is easy. Use GnuPG. And read "No Place to Hide" by Greenwald.
 
 
+5 # mayordoug 2014-06-08 19:28
Except for RSN, it appears the Fourth Estate is dead.
 
 
+8 # dick 2014-06-08 22:00
NEVER forget: the NYT works for the enemies of freedom.
 
 
+2 # Doubter 2014-06-09 12:36
"Establishment mouthpiece."
 
 
+5 # dick 2014-06-08 22:08
Apparently, Rison was more than willing to go along with the cover-up. There is NO ONE at the Times we can trust, especially Uncle Tom Friedman.
No racial slur intended, but Uncle Tom fits that jerk so well.
 
 
-1 # dquandle 2014-06-09 20:57
but when your military stomps it sufficiently, the world really really really is flat….
 
 
+4 # kalpal 2014-06-09 08:30
The whole world is aware of the massive failures of this nation's intelligence agencies. Is anyone aware of any of their successes?

They gather lots of information but find it impossible to persuade anyone in charge to act upon that data. You can lead a politician to data but it is rarely possible to endow one with the training to understand and use it in appropriate manner.

Both and Cheney were made aware of Ossama's intentions. Both chose to ignore the warnings because their personal hubris denied that anyone was more privy to reality than they were. In Bush's case it is forgiveable since he was by far the most ignorant man to be in that office after Saint Ronnie.
 
 
+4 # Doubter 2014-06-09 12:42
Maybe they're not as retarded as they want you to believe. I doubt even the Bush was surprised by the three buildings obviously controlled demolition.
I don't know about you, but I'll never believe the official story - even after having suffered a brain stroke
 
 
+2 # dquandle 2014-06-09 20:03
Baquet's "realization" is just more mealy mouthed drivel from the now head of the principle exponent of the US regime propaganda central. Nothing will change at the Times because there really isn't any interest in informing the American public about anything other that what and how to buy, and when and how to wave the flag in service of whatever criminal regime holds power, and whatever their latest attempt at empire is….
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2014-06-10 11:28
Quoting dquandle:
Baquet's "realization" is just more mealy mouthed drivel from the now head of the principle exponent of the US regime propaganda central. Nothing will change at the Times because there really isn't any interest in informing the American public about anything other that what and how to buy, and when and how to wave the flag in service of whatever criminal regime holds power, and whatever their latest attempt at empire is….


Very true. Just look at the biased narratives they've recently delivered on Ukraine and Syria. To their credit, they did retract two of their stories that proved the US was right (Syria trajectory story, pictures of east ukrainians in russia) .... once it became incredibly obvious that the US narratives were wrong. Even after Iraq, the NYT is more than willing to publish the official narrative to coax "we, the sheeple" into more unnecessary wars. Baquet, as many have stated here, is just posturing. Nothing will change at the NYT.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN