"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.