The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
I know this will surprise precisely none of you but here are the first two paragraphs from an editorial by the New York Times on July 26, 2007, headlined "Defying the Imperial Presidency":
The House Judiciary Committee did its duty yesterday, voting to cite Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, for contempt. The Bush administration has been acting lawlessly in refusing to hand over information that Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed. If the White House continues its obstruction, Congress should use all of the contempt powers at its disposal.
The committee really had no choice but to hold Ms. Miers in contempt. When she was subpoenaed to testify about the administration’s possibly illegal purge of nine United States attorneys, she simply refused to show up, citing executive privilege. Invoking privilege in response to particular questions might have been warranted — the courts could have decided that later. But simply flouting a Congressional subpoena is not an option.
And here are the first two graphs of their editorial today, called "A Pointless Partisan Fight":
The political feud between the White House and Congressional Republicans has now culminated in a House oversight committee vote to cite Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for criminal contempt. His supposed crime is failing to hand over some documents in an investigation of a botched gunrunning sting operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
The Republicans shamelessly turned what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation. And the White House responded as most administrations do at some point: it invoked executive privilege to make a political problem go away.
I know I should be disgusted to see such hypocrisy, but I'm almost just impressed that they can do it with a straight face.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
You don't get it. It is ok to do the wrong thing as long as it's the "right" wrong thing. Wake up, Mollie.
Nov '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Come on, Mollie. Different day, different president, different standard.
Mar '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
It says All the News That's Fit to Print. It doesn't say anything about consistent or coherent editorial policy.
So there.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Byron York also noticed the hypocrisy and adds, on Twitter,
It's one thing that their partisans in the editorial office are unprincipled on various matters. But that such political leanings are apparent in the news pages is worse.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Good news. Not every paper's editorial page is so in bed with the Obama administration. Here's the Denver Post:
Editorial: End the secrets on Fast and Furious The Obama administration needs to end the gamesmanship and turn over requested documents in a gun-smuggling investigation.
Sep '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Attaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch.
Aug '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
As James Taranto would say, "Two Papers In One!". Particularly amusing are the NYT's contortions regarding filibusters, well-documented by Taranto. They're against 'em, they're for 'em, they're against 'em.... I think you can guess when they're for 'em and when they're against 'em. The naked partisanship and lack of principles are breathtaking.
Jan '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
In philosophy and information theory, things are significant if they have multiple possible states, and the significance comes when they actually display one of those possibilities. In other words, things are significant when they contain the possibility of surprise.
The NY Times no longer has any surprise. We know what they're going to say before they say it. They are, therefore, of no real significance.
Nov '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
They've been baiting Holder for a very long time, then. See this, from February:
Edited on June 21, 2012 at 3:29pmNov '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Nov '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
I suppose to the NYT, asking a Democrat to comply with the law is "baiting".
Sep '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
What I find most interesting is how the New York Times readers are prepared to believe anything and everything that conforms to their prejudices.
It no longer bothers me much, because they have entranced Democrats with the siren song. Democrats can believe in fantasies at their own peril.
Jun '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
"All the predictable hackery that fits."
Apr '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Mollie why do you assume they remember what they said editorially so many years ago? They probably don't. You can't be inconsistent if you don't remember the past. I assume most liberals live in a constant "now". From which they view all things and respond to them based on how they instantly feel.
They hated Bush so any thing that went against hims was good and necessary. They love Obama so anything that goes against him is bad and unnecessary.
Edited on June 21, 2012 at 4:47pmJul '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Well, it is an editorial. How NYT views the world is obvious and the fact that they lie and manipulate is is well known as well. Had they reported the facts I'd have been astounded.
Mar '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
An interesting observation, something of a fire and forget mentality? It strikes me that is also similar to how individuals behave when inebriated. Perhaps that is a new lens through which we should view liberals.
From now on when reading the words of the NYT I will try considering them as if they had been written by someone who was a bit intoxicated at the time. Maybe they will start to make a bit more sense.
Edited on June 21, 2012 at 4:58pmOct '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Can we dispense with Peter citing things from the NYT now?
Jun '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
We're mistaking inconsistency with lack of principle. They have principles (they're just not the "first principle" type principles conservatives and libertarians tend to embrace).
Here are four of the NYT's principles:
See, the NYT always acts consistent with its principles. You just need to figure out the principles.
Jan '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
What boggles my mind is the superior mindset of the NYT. Never mind it's hemorrhaging money. Never mind that readership is dwindling. They feel they have to double down on their strange polarized worldview.
Mar '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Truly, they have a dizzying intellect.