Yes, this story is riveting and written in best journalistic traditions. But, wait! Let me tell you how I see it. The New York Times died as a credible newspaper over a decade ago. And too few people seem to have noticed. Like many others, I once regarded the Times as the epitome of objectivity. No more; not for a very long time.
What happened at the Times is a glaring example of what has happened to U.S. journalists nationally. They graduate from journalism schools that don’t adequately stress objectivity. They take sides. They neglect to fairly cover (or cover at all) important stories that don’t further their cause. They slant. They even lie.
So, what does my opinion have to do with this particular story? I’m guessing that the Times has a motive. Maybe the motive is unspoken and tacitly understood by editors and staff. But I believe it’s partially to give cover to a Hillary Clinton presidential run. She is extremely vulnerable on this issue, having sat by while underlings falsely declared that a poorly produced, amateur video satirizing Muslim religious beliefs was responsible for the attack killing the ambassador and others.
As Secretary of State, ultimately in charge during the disaster, she’s between a rock and a brick wall on this one. And, quite possibly, here’s the NY Times coming to her defense, without even seeming to do it. I don’t know how the Times changed from the world’s most credible newspaper to a part-time propaganda machine, but it did. And it’s astounding how few people are aware.
And yet, this long story is worth reading. It’s packed with good information and will give you a better understanding of some events. Recommended with reservations. — MC
Mike Caro says: