Email to a friendMedia Views
Harpers: “Objectivity” or Spinelessness? (2/7/08) by Scott Horton
Horton argues that the editors' note (2/7/08) by which New York Times editors distanced themselves from the co-author of their own newspaper's front page expose (New York Times, 2/4/08) on the case of a Guantanamo detainee is a "badge of shame...It shows a paper whose editors operate to demonstrably lower standards than the journalists they employ."
Horton hypothesizes on the events that likely transpired to prompt this dismissive note:
Having dealt with Guantánamo and reporting on Guantánamo since the camp was opened, I have a pretty good guess what happened. A call came to the New York Times from a Bush Administration figure complaining bitterly about the article, and viciously attacking Worthington. Since the Bushie attack dogs rarely do anything halfway, I’d wager Worthington was tarred as some sort of barking leftist kook. And the Times editors, rather than stand up for their writers on a superior story, did what they usually do. They displayed cowardice under fire. They opted to buy peace with the powers that be by assailing their own writer.
Horton adds that a particularly
preposterous aspect of the “note" is the suggestion that there is something “outspoken” in calling to close Guantánamo and labeling the facility what it is. The posture adopted in Worthington’s book is indeed very radical. Among the radicals who have embraced it are the American Bar Association, Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, Chancellor Angela Merkel, the English Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, and hundreds of other political and spiritual leaders around the world. Come to think of it, the list of radicals includes the editorial board of the New York Times.
FAIR does not endorse every opinion expressed or vouch for facts presented here, except by ourselves. Send link suggestions to jnaureckas@fair.org.
