Syria, Obama and his mainstream media shills, New York Times coverage condemned by one of its own

The (New York) Times seems to take the government’s position at face value. It’s a tiny example, of course, but in the aggregate it’s the kind of thing the readers I’ve quoted here are frustrated about. --New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan (see link below)

"After falsification of intelligence leading up to Iraq, We can’t ever accept at face value what we’re told" http://t.co/OXaIOAhx2K
— intelfail (@intelfail) August 31, 2013

In News Coverage and Editorials on Syria, How Much Skepticism in The Times? - NYTimes.com: "I’ve been observing The Times’s Syria coverage and its editorials for many weeks, with an eye to this question. While The Times has offered deep and rich coverage from both Washington and the Syrian region, the tone cannot be described as consistently skeptical. I have noticed in recent weeks the ways that other major newspapers have signaled to their readers that they mean to question the government’s assertions. For example, although it may seem superficial, The Washington Post has sent a strong message when it has repeatedly used the word “alleged” in its main headlines to describe the chemical weapons attacks. I have also found that The Times sometimes writes about the administration’s point of view in The Times’s own voice rather than providing distance through clear attribution." -- source: Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor, New York Times

  Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole