THE TIMES SHOULD ADOPT A HIGHER STANDARD
By Ron Marr (08/04/05)
Though few in number, there are certain constants in life. The sun will rise in the east. Tides will come in and go out. The leaves will turn color in the fall and the sounds of a bluegrass banjo will make you tap your toe. Recently though, I have discovered what appears to be a new immutable law.
Just when you think they couldn't possibly get any lower, their journalistic integrity any more base or biased, the New York Times will turn around and surprise you. When it comes to pure nasty, the "Old Gray Lady" proves time and again that she can shimmy under a limbo bar buried under 10 feet of steaming muck.
I can forgive the bias on the opinion pages of the Times. After all, opinion pages by their very nature are meant to be opinionated. Having worked for a number of newspapers, I can state without hesitation that a newspaper's editorial will always reflect the political ideology of its owner. I can partially forgive the fabrications that were presented by Jayson Blair. The Times was swept up in its idiotic dedication to political correctness and racial diversity, and in the wake of Blair the company permitted the appropriate heads to roll in the name of accountability.
But that's where my empathy ends. I've never forgiven the liberal bias - sometimes intentional and sometimes not - that is a consistent part of The Times' allegedly objective reporting. I've never forgiven them for supporting and participating in the witch hunt against George Bush. They hinted at drug abuse, which was never proven. They hinted at drunken driving, which was never proven. They piled on with gusto during the attempted CBS National Guard frame-up, which was not only never proven but discredited entirely and led to the firing (I'm sorry...coincidental resignation) of Dan Rather. On the even of the 2004 presidential election The Times reported "breaking" news of deadly weapons being stolen from under the noses of American troops in Iraq, failing to mention in any meaningful way that the story had first been reported at the beginning of the war, and in fact occurred before our troops were in control of the site in question. The Times forever waxes nostalgic over tolerance, and yet their news articles often imply that residents of America's heartland are akin to backwards religious fanatics who live in trailers and scratch their privates in public.
I could go on, but such would be a study in redundancy. The point, as stated earlier, was that I didn't truly the think the New York Times could get any lower.
I was wrong.
According to a recent report, The New York Times is investigating the adoption records of Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts and his wife adopted their two children - Jack and Josie, age four and five respectively - from Latin America. While there could be nothing more kind, compassionate or loving than adopting a child and raising it as your own, The Times apparently sees such a move as an opportunity to uncover possible skullduggery.
Odd, isn't it, how during the Clinton years all it took was a single sentence from Bill and Hillary to forge a permanent press blockade (both in print and TV) regarding their daughter Chelsea? Odd, isn't it, how the press can happily inform the world that Angelina Jolie is a saint for adopting an underprivileged kid from a Third World country? This is in contrast to how, early on in the Bush administration, the impartial media enjoyed speaking of how George and Laura's two daughters were out partying at nightclubs in Austin, Texas. This in contrast to how the dispassionate media couldn't wait to tell us Dick Cheney had a gay daughter.
This is in contrast to how the New York Times itself - immediately after the President introduced John Roberts as nominee in a televised announcement - criticized the clothes that the two tiny children were wearing. Can you imagine what the fall-out would have been had a member of the press, let alone the New York Times, made unflattering comments about Chelsea Clinton, either before or after the cosmetic enhancements? The reporter or columnist who dared to make such a statement would be fired on the spot!
The Times will no doubt back off on this story, now that their dirty little investigation has been made public. They will claim it is only a standard background check. We all know better. They, like most of the rest of the media, are doing everything within their power to smear any public figure who exhibits beliefs that do not walk in lock-step with the mandates of the radical left. Their goal is to aid in Senatorial obstructionism and embark on a pogrom of character assassination. They wish to manipulate the public by planting a seed of possible malfeasance. The media, with The Times being their standard-bearer, have proven time and again that they will pull out every stop, print or start any rumor, in the hopes of somehow damaging the reputation of a conservative.
Lets hope little Jack and Josie Roberts never snuck a piece of candy, said a bad word or stayed up past their bedtime.
For the New York Times, that's front page news.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
