Murdoch & Miller?
Uncharacteristically delving into the media landscape, Juan Cole asserts that Rupert Murdoch's corruption of the "information environment" is at least "in part responsible for what happened at the NYT."
Cole points out that Miller's claptrap about everyone getting the WMD thing wrong is only true if confined to the narrow contours of the Murdoch/Scaife-dominated media landscape.
"They [Fox/Murdoch media] stalked the Times. If you lexis Fox 'News' transcripts and the NYT in the period between September 11 and the Iraq War, you find a constant stream of attacks. Brit Hume even waxed wrathful that the Times urged Tiger Woods not to play golf on a course at a club that excluded women."
"But the big attack on the Times was in summer of 2002, when it was accused of paying no attention to Ahmad Chalabi and others who were alleging Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs."Which of course turned out to be entirely wrong.
Cole goes on to mention the market and post-9/11 pressures bearing down on a paper with few administration sources to speak of (and thus, desperately in need of Miller's neocon clients), in addition to the cozy relationship between Miller and Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger.
It's a compelling and uncomfortable argument. It opens the realism vs. idealism wounds. On the one hand it's a compelling argument against corporate media but on the other, the NYT is a corporate entity and must survive as one... (Informed Comment)
--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).