byhisello99
New Blood
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3
The New York Times is styled the "Paper of Record."
I buy and read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal several times every week. The same incident was reported in both papers recently; the differing treatment was troubling.
The facts as reported by NYT: A contractor working for detainees’ defense attorneys at Guantanamo was interviewed by the FBI. The contractor was asked to sign an agreement not to tell anyone about the interview. The FBI had thus recruited an informant inside the attorney-client privilege.
I was, in order, astounded, irate, puzzled and doubtful.
The article went on to describe an incident in the past few years (date not given, I recall it as around to 2011) in which the presiding judge learned that the CIA was secretly monitoring the trials electronically. The judge reacted vehemently and chastised the CIA severely. This is clearly relevant to the point of the story that the government seems to be playing fast and loose with the Constitution in Guantanamo. It then described another incident in which the government had undertaken questionable actions with regard to the judicial process for, and rights of, the accused among the detainees. No date was given, and I do not recall when I first heard of the incident. Let’s assume it was during Bush’s administration.
The description of the most recent incident left me with the first impression that the FBI had undertaken the action in order to recruit an informant. Thus, astounded and irate. The follow-on about the judge’s reaction allowed me to conclude that the judge in the current case probably reacted similarly. Yet I had some very real doubts.
The WSJ did not dispute the facts about the most recent case. It only added one fact: the interview of the contractor was in furtherance of an FBI investigation into alleged conspiracy between defense attorneys and defendants to violate both U.S. laws and existing orders from the trial judge.
I am floored. NYT did not consider the investigation part of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Perhaps it was unaware of that fact, and was simply scooped by WSJ. There was, however, no disclaimer about “no response from the Justice Department.” That is at best a charitable interpretation. Perhaps the story editors never imagined that a reader could interpret that the recruitment of an informant was the objective of the interview. In my experience NYT story editors are simply not that sloppy. Adding the other recent (CIA) and the judge’s reaction allowed for an assumption that the judge equally disapproved of the FBI’s activities. Either the National Enquirer hijacked Jill Abramson’s desk and pulled a dirty trick, or NYT story editors have all overdosed on stupid pills. Or something else is going on.
Puzzled and doubtful followed irate because, while I disagree on some things with General Holder I cannot imagine him, a highly respected attorney and equally-respected former judge, ever countenancing government intrusion into any attorney-client privilege. Additionally, he has been, through two administrations, one of the foremost defenders of the rights of Guantanamo detainees. There was no earthquake recorded at the Justice Department. As written, the story does not pass the smell test.
The lack of the earthquake leads me to conclude that the WSJ’s reporting is accurate. If it is a lie (after all, WSJ is owned by NewsCorp, which also owns Fox News) then there has been sufficient time for either Justice or the White House to call WSJ on the lie. There has been no hesitancy on the part of the administration to disparage Fox News and other NewsCorp media. There has been no accusation of lying against WSJ about the report. I can only assume that the investigation is fact.
I, a layman, understand that every investigation into such alleged conspiracy is always approved in advance by the responsible trial judge. Perhaps one of the forum's attorney contributors can weigh in here. Meanwhile, General Holder has not yet called for the FBI Director’s head.
As written, the NYT article is deceptive. Is the deception intentional? Perhaps not, and the “stupid pills” hypothesis explains it. Perhaps so, and that leaves all of us poorer and ill-served.
Were this a lone incident I would be worried. Instead, I am alarmed. Last Autumn the NYT ran a story claiming that that the Benghazi attack had in fact been motivated by the Youtube video. The source cited was a single interview by a reporter of a single participant during the attack. This came a year after the incident, and at least ten months after the Obama Administration itself had disavowed the explanation. The claim is bizarre.
A recent NYT article tied white supremacists to military service. This affronts me in so many ways on so many levels that I am not certain I can articulate my offense. A number of veterans’ groups have called NYT on the insult; I’m still looking for a reply.
WSJ is a reliable mouthpiece for Republicans on its editorial pages; NYT is an equally reliable mouthpiece for Democrats on its editorial pages. Over the decades I have found little leakage between opinion and hard news reporting. It appears that NYT has sprung a major leak.
If not NYT, what is the Paper of Record? As a fan of good journalism, I am beyond concerned.
I buy and read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal several times every week. The same incident was reported in both papers recently; the differing treatment was troubling.
The facts as reported by NYT: A contractor working for detainees’ defense attorneys at Guantanamo was interviewed by the FBI. The contractor was asked to sign an agreement not to tell anyone about the interview. The FBI had thus recruited an informant inside the attorney-client privilege.
I was, in order, astounded, irate, puzzled and doubtful.
The article went on to describe an incident in the past few years (date not given, I recall it as around to 2011) in which the presiding judge learned that the CIA was secretly monitoring the trials electronically. The judge reacted vehemently and chastised the CIA severely. This is clearly relevant to the point of the story that the government seems to be playing fast and loose with the Constitution in Guantanamo. It then described another incident in which the government had undertaken questionable actions with regard to the judicial process for, and rights of, the accused among the detainees. No date was given, and I do not recall when I first heard of the incident. Let’s assume it was during Bush’s administration.
The description of the most recent incident left me with the first impression that the FBI had undertaken the action in order to recruit an informant. Thus, astounded and irate. The follow-on about the judge’s reaction allowed me to conclude that the judge in the current case probably reacted similarly. Yet I had some very real doubts.
The WSJ did not dispute the facts about the most recent case. It only added one fact: the interview of the contractor was in furtherance of an FBI investigation into alleged conspiracy between defense attorneys and defendants to violate both U.S. laws and existing orders from the trial judge.
I am floored. NYT did not consider the investigation part of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Perhaps it was unaware of that fact, and was simply scooped by WSJ. There was, however, no disclaimer about “no response from the Justice Department.” That is at best a charitable interpretation. Perhaps the story editors never imagined that a reader could interpret that the recruitment of an informant was the objective of the interview. In my experience NYT story editors are simply not that sloppy. Adding the other recent (CIA) and the judge’s reaction allowed for an assumption that the judge equally disapproved of the FBI’s activities. Either the National Enquirer hijacked Jill Abramson’s desk and pulled a dirty trick, or NYT story editors have all overdosed on stupid pills. Or something else is going on.
Puzzled and doubtful followed irate because, while I disagree on some things with General Holder I cannot imagine him, a highly respected attorney and equally-respected former judge, ever countenancing government intrusion into any attorney-client privilege. Additionally, he has been, through two administrations, one of the foremost defenders of the rights of Guantanamo detainees. There was no earthquake recorded at the Justice Department. As written, the story does not pass the smell test.
The lack of the earthquake leads me to conclude that the WSJ’s reporting is accurate. If it is a lie (after all, WSJ is owned by NewsCorp, which also owns Fox News) then there has been sufficient time for either Justice or the White House to call WSJ on the lie. There has been no hesitancy on the part of the administration to disparage Fox News and other NewsCorp media. There has been no accusation of lying against WSJ about the report. I can only assume that the investigation is fact.
I, a layman, understand that every investigation into such alleged conspiracy is always approved in advance by the responsible trial judge. Perhaps one of the forum's attorney contributors can weigh in here. Meanwhile, General Holder has not yet called for the FBI Director’s head.
As written, the NYT article is deceptive. Is the deception intentional? Perhaps not, and the “stupid pills” hypothesis explains it. Perhaps so, and that leaves all of us poorer and ill-served.
Were this a lone incident I would be worried. Instead, I am alarmed. Last Autumn the NYT ran a story claiming that that the Benghazi attack had in fact been motivated by the Youtube video. The source cited was a single interview by a reporter of a single participant during the attack. This came a year after the incident, and at least ten months after the Obama Administration itself had disavowed the explanation. The claim is bizarre.
A recent NYT article tied white supremacists to military service. This affronts me in so many ways on so many levels that I am not certain I can articulate my offense. A number of veterans’ groups have called NYT on the insult; I’m still looking for a reply.
WSJ is a reliable mouthpiece for Republicans on its editorial pages; NYT is an equally reliable mouthpiece for Democrats on its editorial pages. Over the decades I have found little leakage between opinion and hard news reporting. It appears that NYT has sprung a major leak.
If not NYT, what is the Paper of Record? As a fan of good journalism, I am beyond concerned.
