If there were a Hall of Fame for slanted editions of the New York Times, Wednesday’s issue of the paper would be hanging alongside of the many shameful editions produced by disgraced former executive editor Howell Raines. The bias was so astounding, it prompted Internet commentator Andrew Sullivan to declare: “It’s Vietnam day at the New York Times.”
On Tuesday, the state of Kentucky elected its first Republican governor in 32 years. In a race that was forecast to be a squeaker, Ernie Fletcher, a strong supporter of Bush administration policies, easily defeated his Democratic opponent by 10 percentage points. The editors of the Times decided that the historical victory did not merit front-page placement and buried it on page 20 under the drab headline, “Kentucky Elects a Republican Governor” (Nov. 5, 2003).
There are several possible reasons for the muted placement. One defense could be that the story merely involved local politics, devoid of any national implications that would merit front-page coverage. Consider, however, a Times article this summer: “Kentucky Race Is Test For Bush on Economy” (Aug. 14, 2003) in which the Times speculated:
Improbable as it sounds, the first major test of President Bush’s vulnerability on the weak economy may come this November in a state that he won handily in 2000, where his favorable ratings are still high and where Republicans hold seven of eight congressional seats … With a tenacity that has surprised his opponent and some supporters, the Democratic candidate for governor, Attorney General Ben Chandler, has attacked Mr. Bush’s stewardship of the economy …
Thus, at a time when the Democrats were hopeful of a potential victory in the Kentucky race, the Times itself elevated the contest to a referendum on President Bush’s economic policies. But when the Republican trounced his opponent on Tuesday, the Times dismissed the victory as a rejection of outgoing governor, Paul E. Patton, who was not even in the race!
The Kentucky race was viewed as a referendum on leadership but less of Mr. Bush’s than that of Mr. Patton.
The Times then reluctantly suggested that the Republican victory might have “at least” some “minimal” national implications:
Combined with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory last month to become governor of California, it also gives Republicans at least a minimum of momentum heading into a presidential election next November.
In a later edition of the Times that day, when the results of the Mississippi governor’s race revealed another clear victory for a Republican, the headline of the article was changed to, “GOP, After Long Drought, Wins Top Post in Kentucky.” How do you square using the term “long drought” in light of the recent string of Republican gubernatorial victories, not only in the South (Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina), but in the two most populous states (New York and California)? Add Kentucky and Mississippi to that impressive list and, objectively, aren’t we looking at the beginning of a “long drought” for the Democrat Party?
Another possible justification for relegating the Republican victory to page 20 in the “newspaper of record” was that there were enough newsworthy stories warranting front-page coverage that could not have waited for publication later in the week. But that was not the case on Nov. 5. That day, the front page of the Times carried seven stories, only four of which absolutely had to appear in the paper that day and only one of which clearly warranted front-page coverage (i.e., “3 Blasts Iraq Seem to be Aimed at U.S. Compound”).
As to the other three items, “Dean Considers a Plan to Forgo Public Financing,” “2 Key Figures in Gucci’s Turnaround Are Quitting,” and “Shifting ‘Reagans’ to Cable Has CBS Facing New Critics,” reasonable minds could differ as to whether they were more newsworthy than the triumph of President Bush’s economic policies in Kentucky. But two others stories appearing on the front page were mere “feature” articles that could have appeared any time later in the week or anywhere else in the paper (“Illegally in U.S. and Never a Day Off at Wal-Mart” and “How Russian Oil Tycoon Courted Friends in U.S.”).
Finally, one item appearing above-the-fold on the Nov. 5 front page was a blatant editorial that should never have appeared in the news pages to begin with: “Iraq Causalities Challenge Bush On a Response” (changed in a later edition to “Issue for Bush: How to Speak of Casualties?). It was an inexcusable attack piece masquerading as news story. Here’s now it began:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 – When the Chinook helicopter was shot down on Sunday in Iraq, killing 15 Americans, President Bush let his defense secretary do the talking and stayed out of sight at his ranch.
At best a “news analysis,” this poor excuse for news continued on page 17 and associated with a photograph of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Underneath the photo read the following caption:
President Lyndon B. Johnson, shown here on Jan. 10, 1964 saw his presidency consumed by American casualties in Vietnam.
Quagmire, quagmire, quagmire. But there’s more. Just opposite the page bearing the photo of a distraught President Johnson was a piece entitled “The Race According to George McGovern,” which was accompanied by a photograph of a smiling McGovern, the Democrat who suffered a humiliating defeat in the 1972 presidential election.
The pivotal issue in the coming primaries, Mr. McGovern said in an interview, is sure to be the “foolish war in Iraq,” just as the Vietnam War was central to his own campaign for the Democratic nomination … “I don’t see that this war has any more to commend it than Vietnam did,” he said.
Had enough? In “Envoy Says Turkish Offer of Aid Remains on the Table” (Nov. 5, 2003), the Times reported on a press conference held by the Turkish ambassador to the United States:
The ambassador said he remains optimistic about efforts to build a stable Iraq. Looking to history, he rejected comparisons to America’s experience in Vietnam.
Who brought up such comparisons? News reporters at the press conference, no doubt. Next we’ll be hearing reporters asking President Bush whether Iraq may be compared to Vietnam, and the front page of the Times will bear the headline: “Bush Says Iraq Is No Vietnam.” Expect such a story to contain lots of quotes from the likes of John Dean and George McGovern begging to differ.
Finally, in the same issue, the Times published a letter to the editor responding to a column by William Safire (“What Are Our Options in Iraq?”):
Listen to William Safire’s tone: Beware of the “failuremongers” who would “cut and run” or “retreat under fire” (column Nov. 3). I learned in Vietnam that the best soldiers rose above such appeals to machismo.
It seems the only thing missing from Wednesday’s issue of the Times was a movie review of “The Green Berets” released on DVD.
With all the recent criticism of liberal bias in the Times, coupled with the hiring of the paper’s first “public editor” who is soon supposed to start looking out for these things, it is astounding that the Times remains determined to infuse its news pages with a blatant political slant against President Bush.
Having recently written a 310-page book on the subject, “Journalistic Fraud,” I consider myself an expert on how the Times slants the news. What I can’t explain is why they do it. If the title of Bernard Goldberg’s new book, “Arrogance,” is any indication, then it’s going to take more than facts, analysis and reason to change things at the Times. It’s going to take a guerilla war, with Truth as our weapon and Hope as our sustenance.
