August 24, 2002


New York Times under fire over stance on Iraq (Stephen Robinson, 24/08/2002, Daily Telegraph)
Leading hawks in Washington who back a military attack on Iraq have turned their guns on the New York Times, charging that America's most influential newspaper is deliberately distorting its news coverage to undermine the case for war.

There have been rumblings of concern within the Bush administration and rival sections of the press for some weeks, but the dismay has broken into the open with some trenchant criticism this week of alleged appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times, reflecting the views of its predominantly liberal, metropolitan readership and editorial staff, has long been hostile to the Bush administration and to Mr Bush's presidential candidacy in 2000, with its leaders and star columnists almost unanimously hostile - and frequently scathing - about him and his circle.

But the charge is now more serious that the paper's news columns have been turned into propaganda instruments of the anti-war party.

They're certainly free to choose sides if they wish to become an advocacy paper, but they should do so openly. Why doesn't Howell Raines just disavow objectivity as an ideal since he seems uninterested in it in practice? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 24, 2002 7:25 PM
Comments for this post are closed.