Only what I’ve been saying for 20 years.
“”Even when the United States is not about to #invade and occupy a country, coverage of official #Washington‘s core interests is generally gracious. Discussing same-sex #marriage or publishing and airing in-depth features on #race, #poverty or the #environment are well and good – and, it should be noted, politically inexpensive – but the principal doctrines of US state power are usually treated gently, with criticism taking place within acceptable limitations: talk of tactical matters, mistakes, misjudgments, and lack of planning, instead of fundamental issues such as #international #law, human rights, misuse and mistreatment of the #military, #economic burden, and further inspiration of #terrorist reprisal.
“Simply put, this change in behavior represents the #liberal parameters of American political discourse: basically #progressive on domestic issues, and basically compliant on matters of statecraft and foreign policy. This too, again taken broadly, reflects the thinking of the #class reading The New York Times. Given the connections between government, the #corporate sector, and #academia – and the frequent migration between the three – it is somewhat predictable that there will be a measure of uniformity in the thinking throughout. Upbringing, #schooling, social groups, competition for positions – members of the professional class grow up being taught the assumptions that point to and/or serve class interests, or that at least allow one to blend in. Going along and getting along are essential to advancement.”
By Gregory Harms
A recent article by foreign policy analyst Robert Naiman, examines The New York Times’ current coverage of Iran’s nuclear program. In it, he exposes a disappointing but unsurprising mishandling of the facts. References to the paper’s shameful prewar reportage on Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime are appropriate. But if the Times is indeed liberal, why the repeated adoption and promotion of misleading, hawkish assumptions?