Bike Rides In Brooklyn ...And Other Matters.: The Newspaper Of Record ... NOT.

Apr 30, 2006

Yesterday saw hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers march down Broadway in a mighty protest of the Bush war against Iraq. Their demand: turn our country around! You'd think that's big news, right? As his poll numbers plummet and the majority of Americans oppose his war based on deception, you'd expect the media to highlight a massive outpouring of protest against that war.

It was with that expectation that I pored over the pages of today's New York Times looking, in vain, for prominent coverage of yesterday's giant peace parade. Nothing on the front page. Instead, the editors did see fit to print another of what might appear to be tongue-in-cheek articles dealing with that shining example of humanitarianism - the Bush administration. Last time it was U.S. unhappiness with out-of-control Sunni militias in Iraq. Seems the folks we installed in power there have taken to midnight round-ups of Shiite men, whose disfigured bodies are then discovered dumped alongside the road, the victims of the most horrendous torture and murder. This time around, the front page reports that the Administration wants to repatriate the almost 500 prisoners being held at Guantanamo but is "stymied ... because of concerns that the prisoners may not be treated humanely by their own governments." Huh? Now just wait a second. Isn't this the same Guantanamo that has been exposed as a hell hole of torture and abuse? The Guantanamo whose torture tactics were then used as a guide book for Abu Ghraib and U.S. prisons in Afghanistan? The Guantanamo where prisoners are being kept for years without charges brought against them or trials held to ascertain their guilt? And isn't this the same government whose CIA has been using rendition (a k a kidnapping) to send alleged terrorists back to countries that are known torturers? To be fair, The Times article did raise these questions, albeit half-way through the article. The headline, however, hardly reflects the content and makes it appear otherwise: U.S. Says It Fears Detainee Abuse in Repatriation.

But I digress - I was looking for an article on the peace march. Wait! There, on page 3 is an article on a demonstration: Big Protest in Kyrgystan reads the headline. Seems 10,000 people were demanding more democracy in the former Soviet republic, (now part of Rummy's New Europe, one of the new "democracies" that is being used as a base for U.S. troops in the mid-east). I leafed onwards. No mention of the demonstration in all of the national section. I supposed that since it was a New York protest, The Times, in its wisdom, had placed the coverage in the Metro section. And my supposition was correct. There, on page 35, tucked inside the Metro section, in a rather smallish article, was The Times' coverage. Never mind that the march had drawn people from all over the country and was, thus, an event of national importance. Never mind that our country's future, indeed its constitution and its very democracy, stand at a crossroad. Never mind the urgency of our times - an urgency that demands massive protest and action to reverse course. Never mind all that. According to The Times - these protests are, well, just old hat and don't warrant reportage in any way that reflects their importance. And so millions of Americans across our land are kept in the dark - their own opposition to the Bush policies kept in check - unable to link up with the growing protests by millions of their fellow citizens.

I believe that a crucial element of democracy (a favorite topic of The Times when favorably comparing the U.S. to virtually any other country in the world) is the informing of the citizens - i.e. the access of its people to information so that reasoned judgments can be made. The intentional and conscious marginalizing of the peace movement, the blackout of press coverage by a complicit and cowardly news media are body blows to democracy. The slanted coverage by The Times during the run-up to the war in Iraq, the scandal that surrounded its ace reporter, Judith Miller and the aid and comfort given her by the editor and publisher have already tarnished and damaged the reputation of The Times as the paper of record. But, it seems, The Times continues to pursue the very same policies and in that sense cannot be depended on to protect our democracy in any consistent manner while our constituion is under attack from those who would destroy it. Only the people, in the streets and in the voting booth this November, can do that.