Friedman and The New York Times

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

The problem with Friedman is fairly obvious. He is pro-war.
If you believe in making war in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly 
Syria or Iran, then he's your man. 

Unfortunately for moderates everywhere, he is also the
New York Times' man, and therein lies a bigger problem,
in my view, of which Friedman is just one example. In case 
you haven't noticed, The New York Times ain't what she used 
to be. Long considered moderately left-leaning, but fairly 
unbiased and accurate as papers go, The NYT, with Friedman 
posing as an unwilling but responsible moderate who "must 
make the tough decision to use military force," led the charge 
for an invasion of Iraq in the months preceding the war.  

The Times deliberately played down their coverage of the
anti-war movement, on one hand, while giving prominence
to unfounded accusations about WMD's and the Iraq/Osama 
connection- without doing their journalistic homework- on the 
other.

Wrapped in their cultural cachet, sitting on their laurels, the 
NY Times is steadily losing its credibility. Jason Blair was a symptom
of this, but the real meaning of the Blair scandal goes much
deeper and has to do with hierarchical arrogance. The powers
that be at the Times have made a conscious decision to 
embrace the Middle East policies of the Bush Administration.
They have become a mouthpiece, and in some instances-
like the growing Judith Miller contoversy scooped by the Washington
Post- they have displayed an even greater arrogance and
have attempted to control events in the field.

The arrogance of Friedman and Miller, to name just two, seem 
emblematic of the woes besetting a paper which is no longer in 
its prime.

respectfully