I've always viewed the Times as being like the old Soviet Pravda without the government funding. So stunned was I to see two almost positive pieces about Iraq in the paper that it took me a few days to even address it. I was convinced that someone had laced the wine I had the other night and that I was in a state of perpetual hallucination.
Political blog readers know all about the two stories but I've been asked on occasion to add background for those who don't regularly peruse political news. The first story had to do with a poll the Times conducted that showed an increase in support for the war. The editorial brain trust at the paper didn't want to believe this. They arrogantly called the findings, "counterintuitive" and decided to conduct another poll, getting the same results. The results were finally reported, accompanied by an article that said they "...didn't make sense." Translation: "Here's what we've found but it can't possibly be right."
The second, more stunning piece, showed up on the Op-Ed page of the Times, which I usually can't touch without breaking out in hives. It's what Hugo Chavez reads when he wants to feel like a moderate communist. The article was by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack and it was titled, "A War We Might Just Win." Maureen Dowd and the rest of the Op-Ed Politburo at the Times must have been on suicide watch as soon as this went to press.
A few days of pondering have led me to only one possible explanation for the Times publishing this article. Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton staffer, laid out what may have been the most detailed, rational reasons for invading Iraq in his book, The Threatening Storm. He has since spent most of his time showing up on cable news shows and telling everyone within earshot that he was wrong. Times publisher Punch Sulzberger probably has a "Ken Pollack Retraction" hotline on his desk that he feverishly prays will ring at any moment. Meanwhile, Ms. Dowd has been talked in off the ledge and is sitting at her keyboard ready to write a piece entitled "See, I Told You So" as soon as Pollack calls.
The above reporting must have been painful enough for the Times folk but Rupert Murdoch's success surely must have them all avoiding sharp objects now. Murdoch is everything the Times hates: wealthy, conservative, American and happy. Add to that the fact that he emigrated from Australia legally and you can see why he's a problem for them. Murdoch's most cardinal sin to those on the Left, however, is that he made the First Amendment functional in American media. Liberals had a stranglehold on television news (ever met Ted Turner?) until Rupert came along. Prior to his ascension, most on-air news outlets were little more than televised parrots of the New York Times (Bernard Goldberg explains this a bit in his book "Arrogance"). The dastardly Murdoch used a free press to reintroduce free speech into the national dialog.
Few things terrify American liberals more than a First Amendment that gets used by everyone. Murdoch is the bogeyman in the Times' closet who just keeps growing more nightmarish every day in this regard.
To those of us on the Right,however, Rupert Murdoch is the light in that closet which, when allowed to shine, makes everything slightly less scary.
|