Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35694)	8/1/2002 11:39:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

The NY Times coverage of the first day of Senate hearings on the proposed invasion of Iraq Experts Warn of High Risk for American Invasion of Iraq By JAMES DAO nytimes.com And the LA Times coverage: Scientist Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Gains Congress: Regime is nearly capable of building cores for bombs, exiled chief of Baghdad's weapons program tells the U.S. By PAUL RICHTER, Times Staff Writer latimes.com And Mickey Kaus' comments on both in Slate: It's worse than I thought #2: The NYT story on yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations hearing makes no mention of defector Khidhir Hamza , who warned that Iraq would have enough uranium to build three nuclear weapons by 2005. The Los Angeles Times, in contrast, made Hamza's scary testimony -- which appears, compared with earlier estimates, to have moved up the critical-mass date by a year -- the centerpiece of its coverage ("Scientist Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Gains"). ... It's common for different papers to emphasize different parts of a story. But for the NYT to basically ignore something important that happened yesterday is a bit bizarre (the LAT covers both parts of the story).Indeed, John Dao's NYT account reads as if it could have been written the day before the hearing started. The headline -- "Experts Warn of High Risk for American Invasion of Iraq" -- certainly fits with the theory (propounded by Andrew Sullivan and others) that the NYT is on an anti-war jag. The only expert Dao actually mentions is Anthony Cordesman, who indeed warned against underestimating the Iraqi. Anti-Hussein testimony is hinted at only in two vague paragraphs describing how "estimates ... ranged." Meanwhile, Dao makes blatant use of that hoary hack editorializing device, the "comes-at-a-time paragraph," as in: The hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will continue on Thursday, are taking place at a time of growing concern in Congress that the administration is moving rapidly, and without public debate, toward a full-scale military assault on Iraq as part of its stated goal of "regime change" in Baghdad. Dao's inadequate and selective coverage comes at a time of growing concern among Americans that the NYT is moving rapidly toward becoming a full-scale advocacy publication, all the while continuing to pretend otherwise and benefit from the reputation it earned in earlier days. ... Experts agree that regime change may ultimately be called for, although they differ as to the timetable. ... Attempts to reach out to the most logical leader of the opposition forces, Bill Keller, have so far proved unproductive. .. P.S.: WaPo ignored Hamza's testimony too, but it had an excuse, having quoted him in a long preview piece on Iraq's nuke capability the previous day . ...(Thanks to alert kf reader F.S.) 5: slate.msn.com