CT Blue

The New York Times takes the White House to task this morning for its systematic assault on the Constitution:

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

I can’t argue with a word in the editorial. I can’t recognize the country either, but I didn’t help disfigure it. In all fairness, the Times should point out that Bush could not have dragged the country into the gutter of history without the assistance of a compliant media, with the Times itself bearing a good deal of responsibility. If we can all agree that torture is barbaric and a betrayal of our constitutional principles, then we must wonder why the Times just hired a columnist who advises against obsessing about such minor issues.

Why, we must also ask, does the Times, along with most of the rest of the media, resort to euphemisms such as “harsh interrogation techniques” to refer to practices, such as “waterboarding” (itself a euphemism for drowning), which have long been recognized as torture. Even the article that the Times cites in its editorial avoids applying the term to any technique actually employed by the U.S. government, though admittedly, and finally, it comes close.

We are not where we are solely because we have a despicable president surrounded by despicable advisors or because we have a supine Congress. Our mass media, including the Times, has consistently refused to hold a true mirror in front of us. It’s not just torture. Our language has undergone harsh manipulation techniques, while a compliant media looks the other way at best, or joins in the torture at worst. Lies are not lies and mercenaries are not mercenaries, but if Bush says so insurgents in Iraq are al Qaeda, be it true or no. Besides being complicit in language abuse, the media has largely allowed Bush and his minions to freely alter reality. If the best scientific methods indicate that the United States invasion of Iraq has caused almost a million Iraqi deaths, it is sufficient that Bush, a self appointed expert on everything, dismisses the number, and it disappears down the memory hole. Meanwhile, the “surge” is successful, despite the fact that it has not achieved its original goals, because those goals are now forgotten and success is defined in terms of a temporary reduction in violence that almost all observers expected would take place.

Most of us have no ability to affect the course of events. Those who do have a special obligation, one that the Times, along with most of the rest of the mass media, has ignored during the entire Bush Administration. Who knows what the editors of the Times might have achieved had they avoided the euphemisms and told the truth when it mattered.

The newspaper of record is about to hire Bill Kristol to regularly ooze political poison on its op-ed page..

Is it too much to ask that the Times at least try to hire people who know what they’re talking about? Here, I set Maureen Dowd to the side, as her columns are all really about herself. Kristol has a proven track record of being wrong almost all the time. For this he is rewarded with near constant exposure in the mass media. With the exception of Steven Colbert, no one has ever called him on his dismal record. Now he is given the most coveted journalistic real estate in the land.

I would be willing to bet that if you stacked my predictions or observations against his, you would find that I have been right more often than he. And I only do this part time, sandwiched in between too many hours of honest work and too few hours of sleep. I realize that I am merely the son of a working stiff, instead of the son of a famous neocon who was also always wrong, but fair is fair. We people who are right most of the time deserve equal time. No, I take that back. We deserve more than equal time. Krugman and Herbert are not enough. The Times needs me, and I could use the cash.

Seriously, the Times appears to be a bit confused in its journalistic obligations. There is no obligation to balance truth with error. I have no objection to presenting a wide range of viewpoints, but is there any justification for giving a forum to a warmonger who is always, consistently, invariably, totally, absolutely, downright, flat, out-and-out, perfectly, plainly, thoroughly, unequivocally, unqualifiedly, unrelievedly, unreservedly wrong?