  |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Right-Wingers Have Repented, but The Times Hasn’tPosted on Feb 21, 2007By Joe Conason While finance and technology are rapidly reshaping our media, undermining printed words and exalting digital screens, the nation’s major newspapers continue to exercise enormous political influence. Their news reports and editorial opinions still shape the ideas and themes behind every night’s television coverage. But the great power of the dailies isn’t always used wisely, especially because “liberal” newspapers have so often proved easy prey for right-wing manipulation, as they were during the Clinton era and most of the Bush era. Unfortunately, we can expect such manipulations to be repeated—as The New York Times illustrated on Page 1 of its Feb. 19 edition, with an article headlined “As Clinton Runs, Some Old Foes Stay on Sideline.” According to that report, the snarling perpetrators of what Hillary Clinton so famously called “this vast right-wing conspiracy” have been housebroken. Christopher Ruddy, a journalist who now edits the conservative Newsmax.com website—and earned a certain reputation by insinuating that the Clintons were responsible for the death of their friend and counsel, Vince Foster—told the paper that both he and his patron, Richard Mellon Scaife, have since “had a rethinking” about Hillary and Bill. “Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” said Ruddy. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick [Scaife] feels that way today.” Although the Pittsburgh billionaire didn’t comment directly, Ruddy went on to compliment Sen. Clinton for moderating her ideology and image. Leave aside for a moment the patent insincerity of Ruddy’s remarks (obvious to anyone who examines his Clinton-bashing Newsmax website). More plausible and yet more astonishing was this: “Mr. Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder.” Certainly Scaife invested millions to portray the Clintons as crooks and worse. He spent plenty of that money to publicize the “supposed involvement” of the Clintons in “corrupt land deals.” But so did The Times, which more than any other news organization bears responsibility for the phony Whitewater scandal and the runaway independent-counsel probe that led to President Clinton’s impeachment. And now, on its front page, in a single sentence, the paper of record effectively disowned hundreds and perhaps thousands of articles, editorials and columns that once framed the trivial, unprofitable and long-dead Whitewater investment as a matter of immediate public concern. In The Times, the Clintons’ guilty involvement was treated as something established, not “supposed.” Eight years and tens of millions of dollars later, the independent counsel grudgingly conceded that he had found no criminal wrongdoing in Whitewater by the Clintons. That was the same conclusion reached years earlier in a nonpartisan investigation by the Resolution Trust Corp. (to which The Times gave scant attention). With the assistance of The Times’ editors, not to mention their zealous counterparts at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, the right-wing network financed by Scaife succeeded in crippling the Clinton White House and nearly bringing it down. Only when impeachment loomed did The Times nervously back away from the consequences of its stupid crusade. To this day, the paper’s editors have never admitted they were wrong about Whitewater. They have confessed serious error on many things, from the Wen Ho Lee affair to the hyping of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but Whitewater remains a sacred cow. All this ancient history matters now because, like everyone else, America’s newspaper editors are prone to repeat the errors they forget. To read Newsmax.com, where former Clinton consultant Dick Morris holds forth incessantly on the grave peril posed by Hillary, is to understand that the right will attack her as vigorously as ever should she win the Democratic nomination next year. Already, Morris and assorted other characters from the old Clinton drama are preparing films and books to re-enact their vendetta, and Scaife and Ruddy can be relied upon to promote those efforts, as they have consistently done for the past several years. No doubt the “Swiftboaters” who so scurrilously and profitably smeared Sen. John Kerry’s war record in 2004 will join the fun.
The question is whether America’s leading newspapers can overcome their aversion to being labeled liberal and expose smears from either side of the spectrum without amplifying them. With Sen. Clinton leading the polls, an honest reassessment of mainstream journalism during the Clinton years is overdue.
Previous item: Let's Get Out of the 2002 Trap Next item: Clinton to Antiwar Voters: Bring It On Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
The Dream Campaign Goes to Berlin
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Skruff, February 24, 2007 at 6:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #55034 by KISS on 2/23 at 7:42 am
Says:
“Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” said Ruddy. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways”
What is amusing is that Bubba was a fine repug. Examine Bill Clinton’s achievements and every republican agenda was adhered to. National debt was no more, welfare was cut to the very poor, health ins. was kept private, Rhodesia was ignored, and oil interests had their way with better tax breaks. ... Billy-bob was for them.”
I couldn’t agree more, but it doesn’t end there. Clinton (NOT GWB) helped business outsource jobs, break Unions, and move factories to China and India.
I personally believe “Whitewater” and “Monica” were engineered by Clinton campaign operatives done so to cover Clinton’s real crime of treason.
American workers better get out of the habit of voting on the basis of the party letter next to a candidate’s name.... OR there won’t be enough of these workers left to fill an outhouse!
Report thisBy SamSnedegar, February 23, 2007 at 10:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
How about publishing the comment I made yesterday? Or does Conason censor me here as well as in his own email? Oh yes, he told me not to write to him any more when I complained that he never talked about oil or what it had to do with why we invaded and occupied Iraq, and what it has to do with our “staying the course” . . . all off topic in this thread save for the fact that you have censored me regarding the Clinton’s case against Gerth and the Noo Yawk Times, and I wonder why.
And I gave him such a nice plug for the book he and Gene Lyons co-wrote, “The Hunting of the President.”
Report thisBy KISS, February 23, 2007 at 7:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” said Ruddy. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways”
Report thisWhat is amusing is that Bubba was a fine repug. Examine Bill Clinton’s achievements and every republican agenda was adhered to. National debt was no more, welfare was cut to the very poor, health ins. was kept private, Rhodesia was ignored, and oil interests had their way with better tax breaks. And the agenda went on despite the arrows from those who profited the most. It’s about time these conservative repugs join in the chorus of how great Billy-bob was for them.
By Dennis D, February 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bukko has it dead right. Hillary is the best candidate the GOP could ever hope to run against for all the wrong reasons. They could give their programmers at Diebold election night off and still easily win it.
Report thisBy Christopher Robin, February 22, 2007 at 2:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The NY Times, paper of the people? Like all too many large newspapers, they are blind to all the decay around them, or on their front pages. The editorial page continues to support the powers that be (financial) while Rome burns. Will they repent?,no just blissfully forget.
Better know a sponsor of your government,
Richard Mellon Scaife Wikipedia:
Link
Richard Mellon Scaife CNN 4/27/98:
Link
Richard Mellon Scaife “The Man behind the Mask” Salon.com 4/07/98
Report thisLink
By SamSnedegar, February 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, I bought my copy of “The Hunting of the President,” and I seriously doubt that the NYT will ever admit what they did, any more than George W. Bush and his cohorts will ever admit that they lied us into a war to steal oil they coveted from the Iraqis so much that they murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent souls.
Second story men tell their children lies about daddy “working” at night, and whores tell their children that their Johns are “friends,” and serial killers tell their families that they abhor violence. You can’t expect arsonists and child molesters to admit their guilt, and con men abound all around us, so don’t ever expect the evil-doers to confess and recant unless it is a term of their plea bargain.
I personally think that both Clintons would have a very good civil case against Jeff Gerth and the New York Times, but if they don’t file it, then the Times will never have to acknowledge that they lied while defaming the Clintons. Oh, the Washington Post did the same with the outright lies published by Susan Schidt and Peter Baker under the supervision of Woodward, but they get a pass as well . . .
It is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy; didn’t you know that?
Report thisBy Canadianguy, February 22, 2007 at 1:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No matter which way you look at it, Obama is the only candidate who is completely on the right side of the liberal democrats who want an end to the war and the huge mess in Iraq. He is bigger than Clinton in ‘92, or Carter in ‘76. Probably only Bobby Kennedy beats him for generally electrifying a young, up and coming, not to mention diverse, electorate that is building very solidly. You can’t beat fate, Obama in ‘08!Now THAT is what is throwing and will continue to feed the Republicans and their Israeli lobbyist friends, Lieberman oblige, into the Hillary machine. We can only hope that Mr. Obama has the best security guards in the country. And he doesn’t. Hillary does.
Report thisBy Ken Mitchell, February 22, 2007 at 4:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
More of that LIBERAL bias from the Times.
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, February 22, 2007 at 3:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary is the PERFECT candidate for the Republicans to have running on the DEMOCRATIC Party ticket. They can whip up their same faithful pack of peasants with pitchforks and torches into a frenzy of “burn the witch!” hatred. They can count on Hillary to divide the Democratic voting base. So vermin like Scaife and Rupert Murdoch will be secretly pumping her candidacy. It’s called “nominating your opponent.” Grey Davis in California did it successfully to win the election before he was deposed. And it looks like the New York Times will go along shillingly. For all they complain about the Times, it’s one of the best allies the right wing has. Remember, major newspapers are owned by major corporations, and they look after corporate interests first, not the peoples’.
Report this