What passes for "Analysis" at the NYTimes

[sirs]

BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
 
'Eventually Prevailed'
Good news from Iraq: U.S. and Iraqi troops won a major battle in Najaf over the weekend, foiling a plot by a Shiite cult-cum-militia to storm the city, occupy its most sacred mosque and assassinate the religious hierarchy, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

Bad news from Iraq, according to a New York Times story headlined "Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions":

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

That's the lead paragraph. The sixth paragraph informs us:

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle.

Good to know! And at least that's a full 21 paragraphs earlier in the story than in the most recent item of this genre, which appeared just last Friday. Still, both these stories seem written to conform to a media stereotype of Iraq as a futile struggle. Even in success stories, what's emphasized is the struggle, with the success being only an incidental detail.

Meanwhile, Times ombudsman Byron Calame reports (last item) that "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon":

The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 "Charlie Rose" show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed "victory is within our grasp." The transcript of Mr. Gordon's response, which he stressed was "purely personal," includes these comments:

"So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it's worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon's voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has "long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances," Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

"I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the 'Charlie Rose' show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far."

It's a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman--and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon.

But as Clay Waters of NewsBusters.org notes, Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar doesn't seem to have gotten into any trouble for expressing the following personal view, also on "Charlie Rose":

If you talk to people my age--I'm in my mid-40s--and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation.

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation." Apparently this is what passes for "analysis" at the New York Times.

A Fertile Metaphor
Is Iraq in civil war or isn't it? Reuters, reporting on the Najaf battle, tries to have it both ways, declaring that "Sunnis and Shi'ites are engaged in an embryonic sectarian civil war in Iraq."

But wait. Everyone knows an embryo isn't a real person, just a clump of cells. This ought to clarify some people's thinking about what's going on over there: U.S. troops are over there to help Iraq exercise her right to choose. This isn't another Vietnam; it's another Roe v. Wade!


Fertile Metaphor

[BT]

Not quite a seachange but ......

http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/010456.html#010456

[Religious Dick]

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.