If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal rag is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.

But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton official
did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included critical
assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities
at airports and seaports."

The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on
the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during the
December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis added).

What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).

Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
story.
a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled "FBI
Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently Took
Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
picture of Mr. Berger.


b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
included a picture of the Clinton lackey.


c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture in an
major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking Classified
Reports."


d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with their
piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
Probe."
So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a small,
six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 -- without
a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material." Notice
the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title; instead,
they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes on
to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly classified
documents.

Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal rag
is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.

But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton
official
did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included critical
assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
terror threats as well as identification of America's terror
vulnerabilities
at airports and seaports."

The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action report
on
the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during
the
December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis added).

What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).

Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
story.
a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled "FBI
Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently Took
Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
picture of Mr. Berger.


b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
included a picture of the Clinton lackey.


c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture in
an
major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking Classified
Reports."


d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with their
piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
Probe."
So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a
small,
six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 --
without
a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material."
Notice
the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title; instead,
they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes
on
to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly
classified
documents.

Why am I not surprised?



Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?



Whatever is good for the Liberals and Democrats and/or bad for Conservatives
and Republicans.

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
rag
is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned
the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.

But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton
official
did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included
critical
assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
terror threats as well as identification of America's terror
vulnerabilities
at airports and seaports."

The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action
report
on
the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during
the
December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis
added).

What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).

Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
story.
a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled
"FBI
Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently
Took
Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
picture of Mr. Berger.


b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
included a picture of the Clinton lackey.


c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture
in
an
major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking
Classified
Reports."


d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with
their
piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
Probe."
So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a
small,
six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 --
without
a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material."
Notice
the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title;
instead,
they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes
on
to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly
classified
documents.

Why am I not surprised?


Because you have a brain that works.





Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?



Whatever is good for the Liberals and Democrats and/or bad for
Conservatives
and Republicans.

You can bet the farm that this Berger story won't go away.

NOYB wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
rag
is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned
the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site. Perhaps they wanted
to wait until they had something to write, rather than puking all over
themselves like the news sources designed for people like you - people who
claim to have ADD because they're too lazy to read more than a paragraph,
or, heaven forbid, a book.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
rag
is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only
earned
the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard
or
read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

Yes, perhaps. Of course, since Clarke wrote the items that Berger stole,
then perhaps Clarke kept copies for himself...and Berger wouldn't have
needed to steal those to keep Bush from destroying them. Berger was
covering something up.

Perhaps that's why Clinton has been over in Europe practically defending
Bush's decision to invade Iraq? He's cut a deal in return for the Bush
administration making the Berger situation "go away".

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
Did you not take a basic civics class - ever?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was "inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was "inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?