Abby juxtaposes the outrage over Brian Williams’ lie about his experience in Iraq with the lack of concern with lies peddled by journalists like Judith Miller in the lead up to the Iraq War.
LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/JournalistAbbyMartin
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
It’s always revealing to see the spin that the establishment places on conspiracy theories and this week it’s the turn of the New York Times, reacting to theories about the Ebola scare:
… Read the restThe spread of Ebola from western Africa to suburban Texas has brought with it another strain of contagion: conspiracy theories.
The outbreak began in September, when The Daily Observer, a Liberian newspaper, published an article alleging that the virus was not what it seemed — a medical disaster — but rather a bioweapon designed by the United States military to depopulate the planet. Not long after, accusations appeared online contending that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had patented the virus and was poised to make a fortune from a new vaccine it had created with the pharmaceutical industry. There were even reports that the New World Order, that classic conspiracy bugbear involving global elites, had engineered Ebola in order to impose quarantines, travel bans and eventually martial law.
In the New York Times‘ article, “Cheney Urges House G.O.P. to Abandon Isolationism,” the author mistakenly referred to Cheney as the former president. On September 9, they issued this correction:
Correction: September 9, 2014
An earlier version of a summary with this article misstated the former title of Dick Cheney. He was vice president, not president.
The article exposes nothing new, just recaps Cheney spouting off about embracing a strong military. Though, “The crux of his argument, in fact, centered not on Mr. Obama, but on the isolationist voices on the rise in his party ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign.”
Maybe the long running joke that it was Cheney who wore the pants during Bush’s tenure has seeped into the Times’ subconscious. Or maybe it an intentional and elaborate jab?
h/t Mother Jones.
The editorial board of the New York Times has an Orwellian knack for war. Sixteen months ago, when President Obama gave oratorical lip service to ending “perpetual war,” the newspaper quickly touted that end as a democratic necessity. But now — in response to Obama’s speech Wednesday night announcing escalation of war without plausible end — the Times editorial voice is with the endless war program.
Under the headline “The End of the Perpetual War,” published on May 23, 2013, the Times was vehement, calling a new Obama speech “the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America.” The editorial added: “For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.”
The Times editorial board was sweeping in its conclusion: “Mr.… Read the rest
One has to consider that the source of this op-ed by Liz Peek is Republican Party mouthpiece Fox News, but still it’s a question worth asking given the Times’ near-maniacal support of the marijuana legalization movement:
… Read the restThe legalize-pot bandwagon has a new conductor. With the single-mindedness of Hillary Clinton seeking the Oval Office, the New York Times is pushing for legalization of marijuana. The paper has published no fewer than eight editorials or op-eds approving speedy decriminalization of pot in just the past few weeks. What’s it all about?
Let us dismiss conjecture that the Times is gunning for a Public Service Pulitzer, which they have not won for a decade. Instead, two thoughts occur.
First, the Times may view decriminalizing marijuana as the next great progressive wave, following on the heels of same-sex marriage and, in earlier years, abortion rights. A smaller wave, to be sure, but one that liberals (and libertarians) can ride with enthusiasm.
Photo: Matt H. Wade. CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
The New York Times and the White House are at odds over legalizing marijuana:
… Read the restNo sooner had the Times published its opening editorials advocating legalization of marijuana than the White House fired back with an unconvincing response on its website. It argued that marijuana should remain illegal because of public health problems “associated” (always a slippery word) with increased marijuana use.
Careful readers will immediately see the White House statement for what it is: A pro forma response to a perceived public relations crisis, not a full-fledged review of all the scientific evidence, pro and con. The White House is actually required by law to oppose all efforts to legalize a banned drug.
Besides, it is hypocritical for the White House, whose chefs brew beer for the president, to oppose legalizing marijuana, which poses far less risk to consumers and society than does alcohol.
The New York Times editorial board is generally not one to challenge the establishment but in today’s edition it comes out firmly in favor of legalizing marijuana in an editorial article entitled “Repeal Prohibition, Again”:
… Read the restIt took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.
The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.We reached that conclusion after a great deal of discussion among the members of The Times’s Editorial Board, inspired by a rapidly growing movement among the states to reform marijuana laws.
There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
Unedited video shows Cliven Bundy making pro-Mexican and pro-black comments. Again the mainstream media is transparent in their desire to distort the character of this man, completely ignoring relevant contextual information which paints a different picture of him and his words all together. I guess being anti-statist in a time of universal boot-licking is an offense worthy of tarring and feathering in their eyes.
For the record Dr. Martin Luther King was also maligned and assaulted in his day and shortly before he was assassinated by the the US government, (corporation, hijacked hydra version) he demonstrated to all the true nature of power in our society:
Time heals all wounds, or something. In a strongly worded editorial in today’s paper, The New York Times reminded readers that “Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not.” The Times also gave some real talk to Edward Snowden haters worldwide: “The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nation’s security.”
The New York Times Editorial Board evidently thinks it’s safe to be openly liberal in New York now that we have an unabashed left-wing Mayor, Bill de Blasio. In this opinion piece in today’s “paper of record,” the Times calls for leniency with respect to Edward Snowden, who they notably dub a whistleblower, not a traitor or other epithet bandied about by the likes of Matt Drudge and Fox News Channel:
… Read the rest… Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.
