>>>>>Please help me out here. How did the New York Times get included in your diatribe?
>>>>>
>
>Pinch Sulzburger has a real track record for putting his political biases ahead of truth, fairness, and the best interests of the country.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>My mistake. I knew he was affiliated with the NYT at times in the past and assumed he still was. Mea culpa.
>>>>
>>>>>For those unfamiliar with Seymour Hersh, he is an investigative reporter who writes for The New Yorker, a weekly magazine. Among his achievements are winning a Pulitzer Prize and being the first to expose the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
>
>Another NYT reporter, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer for reporting from Stalin's USSR in the 30s. It says a lot about the NYT that they still display it in the lobby.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with you that not everything journalists learn should be published. So do the editors and publishers of reputable media. Not sure this story fits in the category of national secrets. Like it or not, this administration's history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling is probably a factor in the news media opting to report more of what they do rather than less. Someone needs to tell us the truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There we disagree. It's a subjective opinion whether the administration has a history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling and, therefore, doesn't rise to the level of objective news, IMHO, which is a core tenet of journalism. I mean, c'mon, Mike, you're saying that the media is honor-bound to "save" us from Bush. That's not right.
>>>>
>>>>So if the German-American Bund in 1940 published shipping manifests of ships leaving for Britain because of their perceived threat to Germany from Roosevelt, that would have been peachy-keen?
>>>>
>>>>I have to, stringently, disagree with that. Also, I find it difficult to believe that Hersh followed the "three sources" rule before writing. If there are three government sources willing to leak classified ops to a reporter then we are in deep kimchee.
>>>>
>>>>I think the mantra should be "could people get killed by publishing this". If the answer is "yes", then the huge temptation to embarrass Bush should be put aside. That's what, apparently, they couldn't bring themselves to do.
>>>>
>>>>Really, objectively speaking, it's shameful.
>>>
>>>Most disturbing is the idea that it is most likely the leaks (and there could have been three) are a result of "congressional oversight" which too often has been the back alley for subverting action by leaking it - without regard to non-political consequences. Unfortunately, also, of late it is not unknown for CIA 7th floor types to do the same.
>>
>>They have also been caught doing a lot of off-the-books stuff that should be scrutinized.
>
>But not in the press. And there should also be scrutiny of those on the Intelligence oversight committees who use their position there for political purposes.
>
>>
>>Unrelated, I don't know if you get enough of "Mad Men" for a while. If not, the first season comes out on DVD today. The second season starts later this month.
>
>Can never get enough of it ! Really looking forward to it (and my secret vice Project Runway - beginning July 16th !!)

I honestly don't get this view of the NY Times as some left wing attack machine. Not even sure what more to say about that.

What is Project Runway? A TV show, obviously. Never mind, I just asked Emily. She said it's a contest like Tyra Banks's show except the contestants are fashion designers instead of models. Sounds riveting! <g>