Now They Tell Us, Again
In this morning's NYT, David Cloud favorably contrasts incoming Robert M. Gates, shmoozing with soldiers and asking their advice over breakfast in Iraq, with the disgraced, outgone Rumsfeld. Gates, Cloud writes, breakfasted yesterday with a half-dozen enlisted soliders, and "listened patiently." "Where Mr. Rumsfeld was volcanic and opinionated," Cloud tells his readers, "Mr. Gates has come across as humble and open-minded."
Glad to hear it. But if you were looking for a Times report that associated "aloof," "volcanic," or "opinionated" with "Rumsfeld" while he was in office, you won't find it. I just looked. Rummaging through LexisNexis, I did find one "opinionated"--"fiercely opinionated," in fact--in an article that also mentioned Rumsfeld. That one referred to Al Jazeera reporters, in a magazine piece by Fouad Ajami.
Cloud writes: "Last March, days after the selection of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki as prime minister, Mr. Rumsfeld stared at the ceiling, noticeably uninterested, at a news conference."
No mention of this ceiling moment in the Times last March.
In power, the leader is witty, sexy, a blithe spirit--he's the man. Out of power, he's nothing but mirth-making, stomach-turning dead meat.
Not to detract from Cloud's report, which is refreshingly gloves-off, but I wonder what we will someday hear about Robert M. Gates.
Comments (12)
If this is a criticism of the Times specifically, then perhaps they are guilty of a bit too much of a worshipful tone to those in power. That's been a criticism of the Times for a long time. It's being part of the Establishment, and it's not really that different from the tone in the other Estabilshment press outlets, such as the major network news and the other national newspapers.
But it wasn't exactly a secret that Rumsfeld was a megalomaniac.
December 22, 2006 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does anyone care if Gates had breakfast with the troops, the generals or his mistress? And, what is the news value in hearing that he didn't fall asleep as the troops talked to him? The real news is that Gates is in lockstep with Bush about Americans remaining in Iraq from now to eternity. When Gates demonstrates some of the open mindedness that so charmed Congress, that will be news, too. But, that won't happen.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 22, 2006 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Anyone else suspect that they got Gates's "ordinary troops" audience from the same casting agency that they went to for the Bush turkey trot '03?
December 22, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NYTimes and the American media in general have developed a habit of never giving a Dem the benefit of the doubt while, at the same time, never doubting a Repub. In the case of the Times is it because they're slavishly committed to losing their "liberal" label? Ditto the other media? Nevermind that the "label" was fabricated by the Repubs, which certainly puts to bed any idea that we live with discerning media.
Nancy Pelosi, according to a TV news reader this morning, needs to "redeem" herself after her earlier "poor showing" as soon-to-be Speaker. Does anybody remember Hastert needing "redemption" or anything negative ever being said about him? Geez, he was even let off the hook in the Foley caper.
December 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody got $99.7 billion dollars they could spare...? Gates will need the money for more ammo, guns, etc. to continue the democratic transformation of the Middle East which Bush believes will end in complete victory, somewhere down the road (he has a roadmap for peace). Cafferty at Crooks and Liars: link
December 22, 2006 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will you take a personal check?
December 22, 2006 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second you on that one....
Some people have even gone as far as saying the Bush Admin. payed the soilders to sit with him....
Hmn - interesting, no?
Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
December 22, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent media criticism -- pointed and factually supported. But, Todd, you don't have to educate us; have you written to The Public Editor?
December 22, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a dimunitive Central European joined a coalition, but needed to be hidden for security reasons, would that be a necessity to cache a small Czech?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
December 22, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom De Lay was not Newt Gingrich's choice for Majority leader in 1994. Did anyone go on and on about how he would have to redeem himself? Pluhleeze.
This "Breakfast at Tiffany's Baghdad" is a puff piece. It was staged and means nothing. The guy is a criminal and I hope the new Congress will rethink the affection that the old one had for this slimeball with the Uriah Heap act.
"Loyalty to your country always; Loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain
December 22, 2006 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't resist.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER. WHERE IS TF 34. THE WORLD WONDERS.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
December 22, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, how the Times specifically works is irrelevant. The issue is how the nation's press and news networks work as a collective.
They do no longer live up to the expectations on a free press. America shouldn't accept the bad traditions of East-Block countries with one all-dominating party.
/Tuomas
December 22, 2006 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink