Slashdot Mirror
White House Forces Censorship of New York Times
VE3OGG writes "It would seem that scientists are not the only ones facing censorship from the White House. According to several news sources the New York Times originally had intended to run an article co-authored by a former employee of the National Security Council, critical of the current administration's policies toward Iran. The article had passed the CIA's publication review board, but was later redacted on orders from the White House. Article authors Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann were former advisers to the White House, and thus all of their publications are scrutinized by a board before they can be published. Of the numerous documents this pair has published since leaving their positions, they say this was the first that was actively censored.
Get real!!!!
The NYT doesn't have to say a thing, the current bogus Bush regime is damaging the USA all by itself.
Thank you.
The only people stupid enough to compare the USA to a third-world country are those who have never lived in a third-world country.
Oh sure, because world socialist publications are renowned for their objectivity.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
After the battle of Midway, some dumbass editor in the midwest, can't remember which, reported that the key to winning was the breaking of the Japanese code.
Think about it. Every Administration makes mistakes. Many things they do can be misinterpreted by reporters and editors than have shown by emprical evidence to be not so bright. Regardless, they should all think...what good will come of this being published in this time of war? Will this help our effort to WIN? If not, then take a little responsibility and make some of that shared sacrafice they all keep whining about and DON'T PUBLISH!
If you think they should publish everything without regard to its impact on our effort to win, well...fuck you asshole. Hopefully, yours will be the first throat some asswipe, islamofacist cuts.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I find myself admittedly in the minority here, but I'd like to point out that:
... even when it would not censor pure fiction coming from itself.
(1) The New York Times ("The paper of record", as they arrogantly call themselves; seems a bit odd with British papers having been established some time prior) has published _sheer fiction_ made up by Jayson Blair, and kept that guy on long after everyone in the news room knew he was corrupt only because he was black; this caused a melt down in papers that ran articles from the Times, and had to retract them. This was an ideology problem.
(2) Routinely runs just about psychotic-level character assassination pieces in its Op-Ed from Maureen Dowd, who lives and breathes hatred for George Bush and cannot find what to do with herself now that Donald Rumsfeld is gone. This is an ideology problem.
(3) Printed an extremely questionable piece *in time of war* handing Al-Qaeda methods on how the NSA scans phone calls outbound from the United States, which not only gave out methods, but blew the operation in place. If you've read James Bamford's book on the NSA you understand how important SIGINT is in the war against Al-Qaeda (it's everything). They've quit using satellite phones and cell phones for a very good reason. They used to think land lines were secure. Now the fools at the NYT blew that. This is an ideology problem. Why did they do this?
Were they defending American's right to phone lines in America? Nope. These were international calls, outbound scans only. You concentrate your computing power and minimize the scanning load as much as possible.
Were they defending America's right to have phone sex with Pakistanis? Possibly this would explain a great deal about Maureen Dowd.
The words "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" come to my mind, but then, I'm just an old softie.
There are people who seem to have retreated from the idea that the United States is at war with Al-Qaeda. Regrettably, Al-Qaeda has not.
I've read in this thread many, many people worried about censorship. But who worries about what the New York Times does every day? Its ideology warps what it prints. And, I think, it was more than happy to yowl about "censorship" as loudly as possible
If you want to read really good books, you'd best not rely on the NYT's reviews. You'll miss books that a bunch of people found good, but that did not pass the *ideology* test of the NYT. "The Purpose Driven Life" comes to mind right off.
And by the way, I too have been to a third world country or two, and if you can't tell the difference between that and the United States, you badly need psychiatic help.
Thanks, Dave Small
Democrats, Liberals, whatever you want to call them are not about trusting the government. They are about controlling it. They are control freaks that hate what they can't control.
And remember, it's hard to trust anyone when your throat is slit or you plane is blown up.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.