| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| In January 2001, the NYT Decided Terror Commission’s Recommendations Were Not "Fit to Print" |
| 2004-03-27 |
| Today [March 25] the New York Times expressed its opinion about Richard Clarke and the 9/11 commission: ... "The real impression gleaned from the hearings is not that the Bush administration was indifferent to the threat of terror, but that its officials had trouble fully understanding it." Perhaps this is so. But a story from the November / December 2001 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review suggests that the New York Times is at least as guilty of the charge they level against the Bush administration. In his remarkable report, Harold Evans tells of the Blue Ribbon committee chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. The United States Commission on National Security was created in a joint effort by President Clinton and Newt Gingrich. In its first public statement in September 1999, the committee warned that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." On January 31, 2001, they issued their final report, a 150-page document which called for the creation of a Homeland Security Department and greater investment human intelligence, among other measures, and warned that America was not prepared for "a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building." Evans reports that the committee held a large press conference when their final report was released, complete with press kits and an executive summary of the sizable document. Yet by and large, the media ignored it. ... The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal did not carry a line, either of the report or the press conference. .... the Times reporter left before the presentation was over, saying it was not much of a story. ... the commissioners were particularly bewildered by the blackout at the New York Times; they pitched an op-ed article signed by Hart and Rudman in the hope that it would induce the Times to take a proper look at the commission’s work. The article was rejected. Today the editors of the New York Times praise Richard Clarke for "accepting responsibility" in not paying more attention to the terrorism which led to September 11. Perhaps it is too much to ask that they do the same. |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #4 God is on my Muck4doo watch list. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-03-27 6:02:31 PM |
| #3 Whoa! Now that's a commandment! Gulp! Uh, er, um, tanx Big Guy! Lol! "That's the way it ought to be: Proud of the Infantry! Gung ho, sir!" |
| Posted by: .com 2004-03-27 12:14:17 PM |
| #2 .com: Unfetter thyself from doubts. I put ridiculous things there to be ridiculed! Now take up thy keyboard, and continue smiting yon trolls with divinely devilish Ranting, my son... |
| Posted by: God 2004-03-27 12:07:18 PM |
| #1 The NYT continues to be lightyears behind the curve... Just the InstaPundit links from the 24th onward (scroll up from here) completely wipe out any notion, whatsoever, that the truth plays any part in their reportage or op-ed thundering. The paragon continues to not only embarrass itself, but prove beyond a shadow of doubt it deserves mocking derision. If that's okay with the powers that be, of course. Don't wanna overstep my bounds. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-03-27 11:05:31 AM |