As Steve Rendall noted here (1/22/10), Scott Horton's explosive Harper's report (3/10) on several ostensible suicides at Guantanamo has received very little mainstream media attention--despite the fact that Horton's account suggests that the prisoners were murdered by U.S. officials at a "black site" within the Guantanamo facility.

But never fear--the story has finally broken through. And in the New York Times, no less!

Sort of... it's on the letters page.

To the Editor:

Re "Editorial Shake-Up as Harper's Tries to Stabilize in a Downturn" (Business
Day, February 1):

I'd like to clarify your report of something I said at a Harper's Magazine
staff meeting on January 27. When I complained that "the mainstream media is
ignoring it to death," I was referring not to the magazine itself but to our
March cover story by Scott Horton, which challenges the official government
account of the alleged suicides by three prisoners at Guantánamo in 2006.

John R. MacArthur
Publisher, Harper's Magazine
New York, February 6, 2010

So just to be clear: The Times story about Harper's referred to the magazine being ignored by the rest of the media--and the Times managed to omit the specific story the publisher said the media were ignoring.

Last month CJR blogger Curtis Brainard (1/29/10) complained that the media were not giving enough attention to some complaints--mostly from climate change deniers--about the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and complaints about IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. Jim Naureckas suggested right here that this was a bad idea, but today the New York Times (2/9/10) seemed to take CJR's advice.

The headline ("U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege") and second paragraph suggest something important:

But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, called for Dr. Pachauri's resignation last week.

So what's the status of these charges? You have to read a few more paragraphs until you're told that "several of the recent accusations have proved to be half-truths," and that the "general consensus among mainstream scientists is that the errors are in any case minor and do not undermine the report’s conclusions." Well, shouldn't that be made clear from the start?

There are two scientific criticisms made about the last IPCC report--one has been found baseless, while the other was an actual mistake, though the magnitude of the error seems to have been overstated. But that's apparently good enough to craft a whole story around the "IPCC Under Siege" theme, and to collect quotes from the likes of leading denier Christopher Monckton: "The chair is an Indian railroad engineer with very substantial direct and indirect financial vested interests in the matters covered in the climate panel’s report. What on earth is he doing there?"

Monckton is, among other things, "the chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute"-- a climate change denying think tank that apparently does not disclose its funders (SpinProfiles). Yet apparently the Times sees Monckton as a credible source for critiquing the head of the IPCC for failing to disclose his financial ties.

David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist who speaks for the little guy who eats at the Applebee's salad bar, has figured out (1/29/10) what Barack Obama ought to do:

Force the country to accept common sacrifice.  This is the issue that unlocks everything else.... Establish your credibility and offer to raise taxes on the lower 98 percent.

At a time of 10 percent unemployment,  when the median wage for male workers is lower than it was in 1974, Brooks has a solution: Let them not eat so much cake.

FAIR has a new Action Alert out, "Does NYT's Top Israel Reporter Have a Son in the IDF?" (1/27/10), about the New York Times' failure to respond to questions about whether Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner's son is enlisted in Israel's military, and, if so, whether this poses a conflict of interest. If you send a message to the Times about the alert--or otherwise have thoughts you'd like to share about the alert--please make use of the comments thread for this post.

The New York Times, which we had criticized (FAIR Blog, 1/12/10, 1/13/10) for ignoring insurgent candidate Jonathan Tasini in its coverage of the New York Senate race, ran a substantial piece about his candidacy today (1/27/10). While the piece, by N.R. Kleinfield, had a somewhat wry tone as it stressed the "long shot" nature of Tasini's bid, it also gave him space to outline his progressive policy positions and how they differ from those of incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

The lead in an article in today's New York Times (1/26/10) tells us that the White House and Congressional Democrats will soon decide "whether to use a procedural maneuver" to pass a healthcare bill with less than 60 votes in the Senate. That process is called budget reconciliation; it would be a complicated process, to be sure,  and as the Times tells us "it carries numerous risks, including the possibility of a political backlash against what Republicans would be sure to cast as parliamentary trickery."

Well yes, they could indeed say that--and reporters will type it into stories. As the article elaborates: "Republicans, however, have made clear that they will portray Mr. Obama and Democrats as trying to use a hardball tactic to win passage of the healthcare legislation." That was followed by a quote from Republican Rep. John Boehner, who lambasted the administration's "job-killing policies."

Read further, though, and you come to this: "The mere mention of reconciliation infuriates many Republicans, even though they occasionally used the tactic when they were in the majority."

Wait--what was that last part again? Republicans are infuriated by a tactic they used when they were in power? Isn't that hypocrisy a little more important than boilerplate GOP complaints?

This article has a familiar feel. In fact, the problem here was the problem with another Times article eight months ago, written by Robert Pear--a co-author of today's piece.  As I pointed out then, Pear called reconciliation "obscure" and "high-risk," before adding, almost as an aside: "The fast-track procedures have been used 19 times since 1980 to pass major legislation, including much of President Ronald Reagan’s domestic policy agenda in 1981, welfare overhaul in 1996 and President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003."

There was little protest from the corporate media to passing tax cuts for the wealthy using reconciliation. Healthcare reform, for some reason, is treated differently.

The New York Times is one of the most effective tools for limiting discussion in the U.S. political system. Falsely perceived as a left-leaning outlet, it has the power to make the most reasonable proposals seem ultra-radical by placing them beyond the pale.

Take yesterday's review by Times book critic Michiko Kakutani (1/19/10) of progressive economist Joseph Stiglitz's Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy. Kakutani says Stiglitz's accurate prediction of the financial crisis " lends credibility to his trenchant analysis of the causes of the fiscal meltdown," though at the same time she accuses him of "an I-told-you-so sanctimoniousness about both the recession and Washington’s response."

It's when it comes to policy proposals, however, that Kakutani really has problems with the book: "Some of the suggestions that Mr. Stiglitz makes in these pages for reconfiguring the American economy (and American society) stray far from the realm of practical policy recommendations that actually have a chance of winning broad public support or being enacted by Congress."  What are these way-out ideas?  Well, for one thing, he suggests that "a 'redistribution of income' and more progressive taxation might help stabilize the economy." He also calls for "a new global reserve system" and criticizes America's "unrelenting pursuit of profits." Concludes Kakutani:

Such remarks not only give ammunition to conservative critics who want to dismiss Mr. Stiglitz as a European-style liberal, but they also have the unfortunate effect of diverting the reader's attention from the many shrewd assessments that he makes in Freefall about the causes and consequences of the great financial meltdown of 2008.

In other words, proposals like progressive taxation should be avoided because people might call you a liberal.  This from the daily news outlet that was named by journalists most often when asked to name one that was "especially liberal."

For the record, taxing the rich is not an idea that has "a chance of winning broad public support"--it already has broad public support.

One of the frustrating things about corporate media coverage is that it's so focused on horserace coverage--who's likely to win or lose in voting that might be months or years away--and yet they're so bad at it.

Take the matter of Jonathan Tasini, running in the Democratic senatorial primary in New York against incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand--and an apparent nonperson to the state's most powerful newspaper, the New York Times.

The Times has lately run two extensive stories (1/11/11, 1/13/10) on whether Harold Ford, a former representative from Tennessee, would also run against Gillibrand--both of which ignored the fact that it was already a two-person race. Tasini, a writer and labor organizer, ran once before for the same seat, and got 17 percent of the vote against Hillary Clinton--a politician with greater name recognition than either Gillibrand or Ford.

You don't have to be Nate Silver to realize that a candidate who has the possibility to get 17 percent of the vote could have a major impact in a three-person race; even if you have a crystal ball that tells you that Tasini won't get more than that this time,  it's impossible to handicap the primary without having some sense of who those voters are and what they are likely to do faced with three choices.

But the Times, playing the traditional role of gatekeeper that powerful media outlets assign themselves in covering elections, evidently views Tasini as a gatecrasher and seems determined to ignore him--even if it means giving readers an incomplete and misleading view of the electoral landscape.

(I should note that I know Tasini, who wrote a report on media coverage of labor for Extra! back in 1990.)

The New York Times ran a front-page story (1/11/10) on the race for the Senate seat held by New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand  that omits mention of the sole Democratic candidate running a serious campaign against her. Jonathan Tasini (who garnered 125,000 votes in a bid for the seat against Hillary Clinton in 2006) declared in June of last year.

But while the paper of record has logged numerous stories on the race--including several, like today’s, focusing on people who are "thinking about" challenging Gillibrand (e.g., "Thompson Won't Rule Out Pursuing U.S. Senate Seat," 12/19/09)--they have so far completely ignored someone who’s actually doing so. Yesterday's piece, on the possible candidacy of former Tennessee congressmember Harold Ford, begins by stating that Gillibrand's "allies have elbowed out her would-be Democratic challengers one by one."

In contrast, Long Island's Newsday (1/11/10) deems Tasini newsworthy; the paper’s Dan Janison notes: "Quite a list of supposed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand 'rivals' in both parties soaked up attention only to punt: Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, Peter King, Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney; Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper; Rudy Giuliani; and Caroline Kennedy. So far, only Manhattan labor activist Jonathan Tasini, who declared last June, bothers to run."

Tasini was lead plaintiff against the New York Times in a lawsuit over writers' electronic rights that went to the Supreme Court in 2001. But Tasini doesn't think that’s the behind the paper's avoidance. He even said as much in a letter to Times columnist Clyde Haberman:

We have received scores of complaints  from our supporters who are angry about the Times' refusal to write about our  campaign. A number of them believe that refusal is precisely because I was the lead plaintiff against the New York Times in the landmark electronic rights lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court in 2001 in our favor. Frankly, I doubt that the lawsuit has much to do with the blackout.

Sadly, it has more to do with a narrow view of what should be used as a measuring stick by journalists to bestow on a candidate the blessing of coverage. And, so, while  you should be applauded for taking on the Democratic Party’s power brokers, I  think it is simply a truth that, while complaining about elites and the lack  of democracy, the Times is itself closing down the democratic debate.

Haberman's response was defensive and off-point:

Suggestions from within your political camp that I am affected by your having been the lead plaintiff in that suit against the Times couldn't be wider of the mark. Until you just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten about that lawsuit. You might want to work harder to hold the conspiracy theorists at bay, at least in regard to me.

But he never addressed Tasini's actual point: that by deciding to exclude candidates from coverage, the Times is forcing an undemocratic "winnowing" of the field before voters have an opportunity to inform themselves. Such gatekeeping runs counter to the goal of journalism to inform and encourage debate, and is surely part of the reason for the ever-increasing public cynicism about the electoral process.

Once again, the New York Times is setting up a false debate over healthcare policy, contrasting White House-style "pragmatism" with left-wing "ideology." The lead of Sheryl Gay Stolberg's piece today (12/18/09):

In the great healthcare debate of 2009, President Obama has cast himself as a cold-eyed pragmatist, willing to compromise in exchange for votes. Now ideology -- an uprising on the Democratic left -- is smacking the pragmatic president in the face.

In this worldview, "ideologues" are those who push for reforms--including single-payer--that they believe will lower costs and offer more comprehensive coverage. "Pragmatists," meanwhile, are moving in the opposite direction, toward higher costs and less coverage, in order to theoretically win the political support of some conservative lawmakers.

Using language like this doesn't tell you much about the debate in Washington, but it speaks volumes about where the New York Times is coming from.

On Sunday (12/13/09), the New York Times Book Review offered a brief take on Malalai Joya's A Woman Among Warlords:  The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice.  Times reviewer Marc Tracy seemed to like the book OK, with a few notable caveats: Joya's arguments, we're told, "have earned the plaudits of people like Noam Chomsky, [and] are sometimes extreme, simplistic and misguided, but they are rarely without a grain of truth." It's hard to tell what the "grain of truth" might be, but throwing Chomsky's name into the mix seems to be a sign to a certain audience that the person being discussed is not to be taken seriously.

Tracy goes on to express frustration at Joya's "tendency to choose rageful denunciation over calm observation is immensely frustrating." This is someone who has faced off against the Taliban and various warlords in her home country. Is someone really going to chide her for choosing "rageful denunciation over calm observation"?

New York Times' climate change reporter Andrew Revkin is taking a buyout from his employer after a tough year, the Columbia Journalism Review's website (12/14/09) reports. Revkin, whom CJR's Christine Russell describes as "one of the most influential and respected reporters on the environment," says that 2009 "has been the hardest year I’ve experienced on this beat"--in part because

Revkin has increasingly found himself--and his paper’s coverage--the target of critics on both the right and the left, particularly in the often vitriolic blogosphere. He described himself as "an advocate for scientific reality," not for either side of the debate.

"The right," in this sense, means people who dispute the idea that humans are causing global climate change, whereas "the left" means people who affirm that we are--in other words, people who believe in scientific reality. Revkin's willingness to pretend that science is not on one side of the debate explains a lot of the criticism he's taken lately from pro-science bloggers.

The New York Times' reporter on the climate beat, Andrew Revkin, had a front-page story this weekend (11/20/09) detailing the contents of climate scientists' private emails discussing global warming. Predictably, the emails are being taken out of context by climate change deniers--but more interesting to me is the fact that the focus is on the content of the emails, not on the fact that they were illegally obtained.

That's not the way corporate media handled the illegally taped cell phone call between Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and other Republican congressmembers in which Gingrich violated the terms of a ethics sanction by strategizing about how to minimize the charges against him. In that case, they focused on the illegality of the taping--and the unauthorized leaking of the tape by Rep. Jim McDermott (D.-Wash.).

That's also not how the press handled the case of  Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Michael Gallagher, who illegally listened to voicemails at the Chiquita corporation in pursuit of a series of stories that charged the company with involvement in bribery, fraud and the abuse of workers. Again, the wrongdoing that was considered newsworthy was the reporter's, not the target of his investigation.

It's hard to imagine what ethical code would tell journalists to ignore information about corporate skullduggery or congressional ethics violations if it was obtained through illicit means, but if it concerns the academic politics of climate scientists--dig in!

The New York Times (11/23/09) has an editorial on its front page today disguised as a news story.

Appearing under the headline "Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments," Times business reporter Edmund Andrews makes an impassioned plea for the neo-Hooverist economics popular in corporate media: Claiming that "the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners in default on their mortgages," Andrews maintains that "there is little doubt that the United States' long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone."

There's not a lot of news in this ostensible news article; it appears to be largely based on the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, which came out on August 25. And many of the facts derived therefrom are dubious or misleading; for example, the piece claims that "government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone"; actually, gross federal debt is estimated at $12.9 trillion in 2009, and was $8.9 trillion in 2007; that's a far cry from almost doubling.

What's not in the piece or in the government forecast is anything to back up the idea that the federal debt situation is akin to an overstretched homeowner about to default on a mortgage; as economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 11/23/09) points out, "There is no evidence presented in this article that the rise in interest rates will place the U.S. government in a situation where it will be unable to pay its bills and no one cited in this article makes such a claim."

But Andrews' piece is not really about evidence so much as it about the personal intuition that just as individuals need to tighten their belts in hard times, so too should the federal government.  As Andrews writes:

Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.

It's natural to conclude that frugality is the necessary penance to pay for profligacy--even more natural for Edmund Andrews, who wrote a whole book about his family's debt woes.  Applying that intuition to federal fiscal policy, however, is disastrous--that's why Herbert Hoover is supposed to be your model of how not to respond to a financial crisis.

And if you talk to economists, chances are that at least some of them will point out to you that deficit reduction is not what the United States needs right now.  For example, you could talk to economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who writes in the same edition of the paper (11/23/09), "Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: The stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence." (Give the Times credit for including some op-ed antidote to its front-page poison.)

But as Andrews' piece is an editorial only appearing by accident on the front page, he doesn't feel obligated to quote anyone who might question his instinct for austerity.  Instead he talks to the Concord Coalition, the vehicle billionaire Pete Peterson uses to express his opposition to government spending, and to a manager of the world's largest bond fund, who warns us against eating our nuts.

The piece closes by quoting the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee--IDed by Andrews as a group of "private-sector...market experts"--as saying that inflation ought to be our big worry and "fiscal prudence" our watchword.  Who is this committee, actually? It's chaired by someone from JP Morgan Chase, its vice chair is from Goldman Sachs, and its members include a representative of Peterson's Blackrock group--among other agents of the world's financial elite.

Maybe Andrews thinks these folks have nothing but the best interests of the nation on their mind.  But before he issued a front-page call for deficit-cutting in the midst of the deepest slump since the Great Depression, maybe he could've gotten a second opinion.

The New York Times (11/21/09) describes Japan's elite "press clubs" as

a century-old, cartel-like arrangement in which reporters from major news media outlets are stationed inside government offices and enjoy close, constant access to officials. The system has long been criticized as antidemocratic by both foreign and Japanese analysts, who charge that it has produced a relatively spineless press that feels more accountable to its official sources than to the public. In their apparent reluctance to criticize the government, the critics say, the news media fail to serve as an effective check on authority.

The mind reels.