About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

The NYT should just give Cheney a byline

March 16, 2009 9:41 am ET by Jamison Foser

Dick Cheney isn't Vice President any more, but the New York Times is still treating his comments as so newsworthy they must be presented without rebuttal. The Times devotes 558 words to Cheney's appearance on CNN yesterday - 501 of which are devoted to simply quoting or paraphrasing Cheney. The 57 words that weren't devoted to amplifying Cheney's arguments didn't include even a word of rebuttal:

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has reversed many of the policies championed by Mr. Cheney in his eight years of serving under President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within the year, suspended military trials for terrorism suspects and prohibited the interrogation practice known as waterboarding.

That's it -- those are the only words in the article that were spent on anything other than simply telling readers what Cheney said.  There was no effort to present the other side, or give readers any indication of whether what Cheney said was true, or misleading, or incomplete.

For example, The Times quoted Cheney saying of fighting terrorism: "Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem ... You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail. Once you go into a wartime situation and it's a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they've got sanctuary. ... When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they're doing, closing Guantánamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you're going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks."

Seems like that would have been a pretty good opportunity to point out that critics have said Cheney's administration didn't actually find the "bad buy" (Osama bin Laden) in part because they gave up "that center of attention and focus that's required" by going to war against Iraq.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MickD (March 16, 2009 9:56 am ET)
         

      The most unpopular executive leader in our history still can't keep his Darth Cheney trap shut, because if he ain't on CNN, then Fox will give him a show or Brian Williams will act all dour while DC spouts his B.S.

      BTW, the headline on this morning's Chicago Repub Tribune...

      Dick Cheney: President Barack Obama risking terror attack


       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (March 16, 2009 11:37 am ET)
         

      The MSM is completely out of touch and in the pocket of big corps.

      I mean, do they even realize that the Bush/Cheney methods were resoundingly DEFEATED in November??

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (March 16, 2009 11:38 am ET)
         

      Also, going "after the state sponsors of terror" is not a terribly meaningful tactic when it comes to al Qaeda because they're not funded by any particular state. Taking down the government of Afghanistan definitely hurt them, but that didn't cripple them.

      The "places where they've got sanctuary" is Northern Pakistan, a largely empty, lawless area with lots of very rough terrain. Trusting in the last Pakistani president doesn't seem to have accomplished much and putting pressure on the current government doesn't do much by itself either.

      And what do either of those things have to do with keeping Guantanamo open?!?!?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (March 16, 2009 11:41 am ET)
           
        Don't forget, that most of al Qaeda's funding comes from individuals who reside inside of, yes, Saudi Arabia. That's because in SA they practice a form of Islam known as Wahabbiism (I hope I spelled that almost right), which tends to trend a lot more radical than normal.

        Also, factor in almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi's, the attacks were planned by Saudi's, and so on. I wonder why we never went and invaded SA???
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (March 16, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
         
      Gee.........now why didn't they refer to the gov't reports which Bush / Cheney quit making public because it showed ever rising terrorism around the world.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (March 16, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
         

      Report: Global terrorism up more than 25 percent

      POSTED: 8:39 p.m. EDT, April 30, 2007

      http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html

       

      posted April 21, 2006 at 11:15 a.m.

      US intel report: Major increase in terrorist incidents

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/dailyUpdate.html

       

      Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says

      By Karen DeYoung
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Saturday, April 29, 2006; A01

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.