RSS 2.0 Follow Us!

Related Posts

Bill Keller is a Moore-on

John on June 25, 2006 at 11:52 pm

Hugh’s response to Keller’s letter explaining his motivation in publishing the SWIFT story is excellent. One thing I note is how Michael Moore seems to be lumbering around just behind Keller’s opinions. Here are a few statement that stuck out:

The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest.

He says “the government” but does anyone think he’s talking about Nancy Pelosi here? One guess who he is talking about. So almost right away, the President is identified as a threat to freedom of the press.

[M]embers of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy.

No, members of the Administration have argued that when you publish nothing but stories of sectarian violence, you risk demoralizing the nation.

[O]ur biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough.

Keller is warming up here. He goes into a reference to the Bay of Pigs. Note, this is the single most disasterous invasion in American history. Very subtle, Bill. The next sentence makes the connection to the present day:

Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration’s claims about the Iraqi threat.

Yes, that was the Michael Moore line for most of 2004. Remember his rant about the “ficticious war.” Apparently, this is an established fact in Keller’s mind. It’s not that we were mistaken about WMDs, it’s that the NY Times didn’t push the Administration hard enough to get the truth. Question: How many times has Keller watched Farenheit 9/11?

[S]ome officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government’s actions and over the adequacy of oversight.

In other words, liberals leaked (with impunity). This was justified because…well, because of the left’s complete and utter paranoia. Still…

[N]obody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration…

No, no, of course not. That would be like suggesting Farenheit 9/11 wasn’t a real documentary.

Update: Don’t miss iowahawk’s brilliant Bill Keller satire. If only the Times employed a few writer’s like iowahawk, the world would be a better place.

Post to Twitter

Category: MSM & Bias |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.