Roger L. Simon: It's been called the biggest terrorism trial since 9-11...

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Wow, that was fast. OK it's past my bedtime. I just wanted to add that the author of this article is the most consistently interesting and least PC cntributor to the Jewish Week.

Not anymore. I have for many years taken it for granted that the New York Times is a biased media source. Yet, even I didn’t realize how bad it really is. The Sandy Berger episode woke me up to the full reality. Once again, though, I adamantly contend that this is not a conscious conspiracy. These journalists live in a echo chamber and everybody is on the same page. Over thirty years ago movie reviewer Pauline Kael blurted out "I can't believe Nixon beat McGovern. I don't know anyone who voted for him." She wasn’t kidding.

The tacitly agreed premise today is simply this: George W. Bush must be destroyed. Nothing is to get in the way of the final goal. There are few, if any covert discussions. One is suppose to know what to do. And this is what makes them so dangerous. People who lie to themselves can far more easily pull the wool over your own eyes. A sort of madness pervades their social milieu.

I adamantly contend that this is not a conscious conspiracy. These journalists live in a echo chamber and everybody is on the same page.

I have to disagree with you there. They've had years of studies, ombudsman, advice, and complaints loud enough to be heard for a long time now. Once upon a time it may have been an echo chamber with everyone on the same page.

By this stage of the game there's no excuse. They have willfully, stubbornly, relentlessly, and with forethought and malice chosen which side they are on and it is the other side. No excuses for them anymore.

I wish I could figure out how to get my Times-reading Mom to understand how biased that paper is.

“They've had years of studies, ombudsman, advice, and complaints loud enough to be heard for a long time now.”

You need to take my argument to its logical conclusion: I am saying that there is little hope for these deluded fools. We must do everything we can to marginalize the New York Times and the other MSM outlets---and cease hoping to bring them back to reality. The hell with their intentions. Let God judge their souls. We must deal with the harsh reality that on a practical basis they are the enemy.

The advice and complaints are essentially ignored because these professional journalists are convinced that they are “fair, objective, and above the fray.” Are you aware that Dan Rather and Howell Rains are perceived to be moderates in their corner of the world? There are people in Manhattan far more radical. I have no doubt whatsoever that they have often been confronted by left wing extremists arguing such idiocy like “LBJ murdered JFK to satisfy the oil interest in Texas. Why aren’t you reporting the facts to the American citizens. Is Noam Chomsky right declaring that the MSM are manufacturing consent? Why are CBS and the NY Times on the side of the reactionaries?” After awhile, a Dan Rather becomes convinced that he’s a political centrist.

It seems to me that the only way to understand the willful blindness of the Times (and the left in general) requies a recognition fo a multitude of factors. Some, as per David Thomson's comments,
are so blinded by Bush fear and hatred that it affects their ability to assess reality.
I think there is probbably a core of people in the media who hate this country and believe we are all "little Eichmanns". I think this is probably the smallest part of the opposition but a particularly influential component.
Many others are simply intellectually lazy and cannot and do not question their basic assumptions about how the world works. They have been nurtured on liberal shiboleths and are incapable of creatively thinking about thier own thinking.
Finally, there is a large group who have made liberalism (as currently defined, which has little similarity to traditional liberalism) a key part of their sense of self (this has to do with narcissism and self esteem issues). As such, to question their political philosophy would be tantamount to questioning their self worth. They would rather risk irrelevance than suffer the loss of self esteem involved in admitting error. They thus find it necessary to continually escalate their rhetoric in their losing cause to maintain their belief in themselves. If they can sway public opinion and undermine the war, even at the risk of us losing, which would be a catastrophe, being seen as right by other people is more important than being right.
Dr. Sanity, myself and others have written about the intersection of Narcissism and politics; it is a troublesome issue.

There’s the old warning: Don’t marry a man hoping to change him. The odds are against you. The same holds true for many full grown adults. We can analyze the motives of these media professionals until the cows come home. But I think we all agree that these people are beyond hope. Only a small handful will likely every get their act together. They must be marginalized.

I know why the MSM is not covering it; what I don't understand is why cable isn't, especially Fox--O'Reilly launched the media offensive against al Arian! Has CAIR threatened them with lawsuits...or what's the deal?

On the psychological issue, I think the leftist craziness is mostly just that. Every moveon'er I know screams, "Don't you read the papers??" These are people who have had their underlying value system stripped away from them from 30 years of PC anti-Americanism. They are buffeted about like dinghies in a hurricane with every momentary crisis. They have nothing left but oppositional reaction to the daily headline based on an "I'm sorry" mindset.

I think the centrists among us have rediscovered and redefined our values--9/11 shocked us into doing so. We read history and philosophy and religion and came to believe that democracy and western civilization, flaws and all, was our preferred organizing principle. We know what we stand for, as well as what we are against.

Well, if you guys say they are beyond hope I'll have to take your word for it and leave it at that. I understand the human capacity for self-delusion but I cannot fathom living life to the nitty-gritty details like paying one's utility bills without periodically revisiting one's assumptions to see if they still hold and, at least one in a great while, challenging one's own foundational beliefs.

For people who refuse to revisit assumptions and challenge their foundational beliefs, I can only say:

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

It's obvious you must love taking shots at the NYT, and sometimes they deserve it. This, however, isn't one of those times.

The plain implication of your post and the linked article is that the lack of coverage of the trial by the NYT illustrates the Times' liberal bias and/or lack of concern for terrorism, or some such right-wing talking point about the NYT. For this to be the case, however, wouldn't it be necessary to show that other news organizations have given the trial greater coverage? Let's take a look at the coverage given to the trial by the other news organizations mentioned in the linked article.

First, the Tampa Tribune: Does the fact that a Tampa newspaper is giving more coverage to a Tampa trial indicate that the NYT is purposely ignoring this trial for idealogical reasons? ehhhh. . . .not so much.

Second, the New York Sun: my search of the Sun's website indicates that it ran three articles at the opening of the trial (June 6-8), JUST LIKE THE NYT DID. Wow. Moreover, while the author of the linked article seems to dismiss the NYT reporters' statement that the drop-off in coverage was partly attributable to the "slow start" of the prosecution's case, the last story run by the New York Sun on the trial (June 8) had the following headline: "Terror Trial More Snooze and Bore Than 'Shock and Awe'".

Third, Newsday: A search of Newsday's site indicates that it ran one story on the trial, that being a June 16 AP story.

Fourth, Bill O'Reilly: This one's a little tough to know, since I can't bring myself to watch his TV show or listen to his radio show (which isn't on any station near me anyway), and I don't have access to LEXIS/NEXIS. A search at Foxnews.com, however, indicates that O'Reilly apparently had a piece about the case on his show at the beginning of the trial, and has since made a few passing references to the trial in the course of his ongoing criticism of the St. Petersburg Times. I found nothing that would indicate, however, that either O'Reilly or FoxNews has given the trial
greater coverage than the NYT.

BTW, although they're not mentioned in the article, I was surprised to find no reference to "the biggest terrorism trial since 9-11" on either rogerlsimon.com or instapundit.com. . . . that is, at least not until an opportunity appeared to try to take an unwarranted swipe at the NYT.

The NYTimes used to have a reputation for reporting the news. Many people still believe (erroneously) that if there's important news to know about, the Times will have it. And if it's not in the Times, then it can't matter that much.

I shouldn't speak for Roger, but I doubt Roger has the least concern for "liberal bias". The "liberal" (and conservative for that matter) labels are utterly useless and Roger has clearly stated that he doesn't care for them much.

What the issue is re: the NYT is, however, one of bias. The NYT has long carried the motto, "All the news that's fit to print" and is widely viewed, among many people, as the "paper of record". If the NYT doesn't cover something it is not likely to be covered by any news organizatons with very few exceptions.

So the NYT not only displays its bias by what it covers and how it covers news but also by what it decides not to cover.

is even marginally accurate wouldn't you agree that the story qualifies as "news fit to print"?

By chosing not to cover this story the NYT is doing what it can to minimize the coverage of this story. They know that and you know that.

Let me make it a little less "heavy" for you:
1) the fact that the neither the NYT nor any other NATIONAL news organization has provided daily coverage of the trial suggests that maybe daily coverage isn't warranted; and

2)Roger's lazy slap at the NYT here says more about Roger than it does about the NYT.

Q: Where did the notion that this may be "biggest terrorism trial since 9-11" come from?

A: The linked article, which starts out: "It has been called 'the most significant terrorism trial' since 9-11". But the linked article doesn't provide the source of the quoted phrase "the most significant terrorism trial" since 9-11. So,

Q: Where did the quoted phrase "the most significant terrorism trial" come from?

A: A little Googling reveals that the phrase came from New York Sun Reporter Josh Gerstein in this June 6 article:

Q: Well, since Josh Gerstein thinks this is "the most significant terrorism trial" since 9-11, certainly he has provided daily coverage of this momentous event, right?

A: Uhhh. . . no. Gerstein's last article on the trial was the June 8 ("Terror Trial More Snooze and Bore Than 'Shock and Awe'") article I cited in my first comment.

Q: So why do Roger and Instapundit and apparently Bostonian fault the NYT for its lack of daily coverage of the trial?

A: Because they don't like the NYT and enjoy bashing it, even when there's no reason to.

Please explain how my supposed "ellipsis management" changes in any way the point made in my comment. I won't hold my breath.

I'm interested in the results of this trial. The "Ask Imam" website has approved answers to some questions that will likely be broached directly or indirectly during the trial. Let's see how the parties on trial conduct themselves.

Rest assured that the NY Times will provide full coverage of the Franklin/Rosen/Weissman issue when it comes to trial.This is,of course,understandable, because passing classified information to Israel is infinitely more dangerous than merely planning an Islamic Jihad in the US.

The NYT has, in fact, covered this story -- specifically, three separate articles at the beginning of the trial (June 5, 7, and 8). Further, according to the linked article, the NYT reporter expects to be providing further coverage as the trial progresses. I have looked and found nothing to suggest that any other national news organization has provided any greater coverage for this story than the NYT.

"By chosing not to cover this story the NYT is doing what it can to minimize the coverage of this story. They know that and you know that."

I stand corrected. Makes me almost sorry I canceled my subscription to that POS... nah, that's not true.

Patm,
So the fact that the NYT is not alone in studiously ignoring this trial somehow makes the Times right? I don't follow the logic.

(Given that the rest of the nation's press tends to FOLLOW the NYT, that reasoning seems circular.)

You're kidding yourself, though, if you think the story would not sell papers. It's got drama, bloodshed, terrorists, corruption, money, almost all the fixings of a hot news story (no sex that I know of). That stuff interests people, always has.

In all fairness, outside of the Florida papers, I haven't noticed any media outlet paying particular attention to this trial (why? no sex or other salacious detail? the nuts and bolts of terrorism's organizational scheme too boring? beats me). However, if the NYT wants to be the paper of record, doesn't it then need to be the paper of record?

The iman answers: 1. If your intention is solely to facilitate easier travel, you are permitted to obtain US citizenship. Although the oath of allegiance is un-Islamic in nature, it will not be treated as an 'Islamic oath'. Therefore, you are not compelled to execute the oath.
2. If you are called up to bear arms against Muslims, you are not permitted to do so by Islamic law.
3. The pledge does not constitute Ilhaad [atheism].

What percentage of naturalized Muslims, do you suppose, subscribe to this viewpoint?

Patm,
We've also seen the NYT downplay the oil for food scandal--oh wait, do you think the paper of record did a good job on that?

Not to my knowledge. The esteemed Canucklehead is apparently a member of, and credit to, our species residing at either the extreme northern or western limits of our natural range.

Are NYT defenders showing up elsewhere in unusual numbers? Two in one day so far... Probably part of the Vast NYT Conspiracy.

Patm - that other news outlets are dropping the ball on this does not let the NYT off the hook.

These stats (as per searches of the NYT Archive earlier this month) may help you understand Roger's disdain for the Times.

--NYT articles/op-eds since 3/2003 whose summary, as per the NYT Archive, contains "Abu Ghraib": 337

--NYT articles/op-eds since 3/2003 whose summary, as per the NYT Archive, contains "Zarqawi": 19

--NYT articles/op-eds since 3/2003 whose summary, as per the NYT Archive, contains "Al Arian": 3

We can conclude that in the eyes of the NYT's editors, the relative importance of these news stories is as follows:

Abu G is ~17 times more important than Zarqawi Abu G is >100 times more important than Al Arian

Is this an accurate reflection of reality? Or is this merely an reflection of the Times' market positioning strategy?

The NYT has made a point of telling anyone who will listen how special they are.

Our local liberal rag, the Daytona Beach (FL) News-Journal, has 20 items under the banner "Florida" on its on-line edition and none of them is news of this trial.

I don't read the print edition very carefully, so it might be buried somewhere in the paper, but it hasn't been featured, nor do I expect it will be.

Kyda, Knucklehead comes from the smart side of the family. Me, well I live in Saskatchewan.

You know how it goes, great minds think alike... or so I'm told. I guess that's why we are here...

I'll betcha NYTimes is sensitive to the time frame during which Sami's conspiracy started up and grew like a mushroom in the cellar. Being the newspaper of record, the bias is automatic to damp any groundswell grass-roots realization of how close a call this domestic jihad really was, that but for a few hundred votes in Florida 2000, by now Sami would likely be doing BIG business rather than headin' his murderin' ass to the hoosegow.

"The New York Times, though it no longer deserves it, has long been held in high esteem by the journalistic establishment and much of the American public. When the Times abandons even the facade of fairness, respect for all journalism in America suffers."

No agrument with the underlying premise, but I'm afraid the r-e-s-p-E-c-t train left the station long ago.

You made the ellision to reinforce your half assed assertion concerning "The plain implication of your post". RLS.com is not a news site. Arguing tu quoque ad hominem here will not gain you debating points. Read the masthead of the NYT - they are the one's making a claim concerning "all the news", not Roger.

The story is important and the MSM in general is not covering it well at all. It might hurt the seditionist movement.

The question that needs to be answered is why they decided to stop covering it. The prosecution is going to slow and there isn't any news isn't passing the smell test. My guess is that the emotional story of the father and the gory details of murder doesn't present the proper PC image of moderate muslims that they strive to present. Lets see if they don't give fuller coverage to the defense. Just as Durbin was considered back page coverage and Rove gets the page 1 treatment the sudden blackout is no suprise.

If this trial was about a Palestinian victim of a Isreali bulldozer it would be front page and the martyr buildup would be going ahead full steam. How can a trial about death and possible(I don't want to hear the you are convicting him before the trial has begun song) monetary and emotional support of foreign terrorists by an American citizen not be big news.

The ho hum attitude about people who openly plot and plan terror in our country is exactly how 9-11 came about. When the Hart- Rudmann report came out with it's dire warnings that proved to be true it did not get the Abu Ghraib month long front page barrage. The Media, both Parties and all citizens stuck their heads in the sand and suffered the sad fate of 9-11. Myself included.

The MSM went ballistic on the hint,later proved a lie, that gitmo guards were flushing Korans down the toilet. The resulting facts have morphed into the absurd MSM cliche of Koran abuse. Print a rumour, when the facts come out and the mistreatment is so minor that the coverage now looks completely out of proportion yet still retain the scary tag of abuse that started with the original rumour.

He may be not guilty. But the entire country needs to have a full explanation and daily coverage, whether he is guilty or innocent. If the NYT has company in it's laziness then fine. But they call themselves the paper of record and their readers will be kept ignorant about the state of this case. Someone needs to explain why the trial for supporting a terrorist group that gets possible aid for it's murderous plans from an American teacher is not news, vitally important news.

June 23, 2005: It's been called the biggest terrorism trial since 9-11...

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post