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.
Second, not that I argue the validity of the info, but are we at the point yet where blogs are considered "news sources"?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Well, you use the liberal talking point "Bush regime," so I'm not sure how objective you are on this (I suspect you're a Democrat). It's not unusual for an administration to censor an article critical of itself from one of its own employees--Clinton bought people off all the time, and even blackmailed a group of women who were going to come forward in 1992 with regards to his womanizing. So don't even try to turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing.
Every political group is a bunch of cronies protecting their own asses. Hell, Nancy Pelosi won't even allow C-SPAN cameras into Congress to cover proceedings. So much for the "most open and ethical Congress in history."
This story isn't as out-of-the-ordinary as Slashdot is framing it, and the White House isn't censoring the New York Times at all (and no doubt the Times will mention something about it) but instead a government official, but foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-haters will act like it's a Republican-only thing. Frankly, I'm highly alarmed at how often Democrats give themselves a pass for things they criticize Republicans for. Just look at the Foley scandal and how evil Republicans were...and then weeks later a gay Democrat who actually slept with an underage page is celebrated by the Democrats. Nobody in the mainstream media pointed out the double-standard (because they were rooting for Democrats to win in November).
"Sufferin' succotash."
I think Slashdot is sensationalizing this story. The White House didn't censor the New York Times; they redacted a story they had a right to redact that was critical of their Iran policies. No doubt, it was a Kerry-esque "let's talk to the people who want to nuke us" paper. Not really a big deal, and Democrats do this stuff all the time. However, I'm aware of the ultra-biased political leanings of this place and expect not only to get modded down but shouted down.
Hell, Al Queda just announced that they won the election, not the Democrats. Do you see any major news outlets reporting it? Hell, no. It would look bad for Democrats, and the media (proven to be biased to the left by several studies) wants Democrats to have a chance in '08. Hence the overwhelming love-fest for Obama and his "sexiness."
"Sufferin' succotash."
I wanna legimite sannitch!
Oh well. People who use the phrase "Bush regime" clearly have no idea what "legitimate[1]" means. Why should they get the number of syllabubs right when they try to spell it?
--
phunctor
[1] "as determined by law". For extra credit, who is the legitimate (that _word_ again!) arbiter of legal disputes, bovine.org or SCOTUS?
[2] here goes the ol' karmaroonie, sacrificed on the altar of diversity. Of everything except opinion.
Please, go back to whatever opressive authoritarian regime spawned you, and leave the politics to real Americans.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Along with the WaPo, has insufficient credibility with me.
In this particular case, all the parties involved know exactly WTF is going on when it comes to publishing 'edgy' material.
The whole point of pushing this over the edge, and stirring an artificial controversy is to improve circulation.
I yawn at the NYT.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I know I don't have to summarize the story again for you. The controversy here is plenty real. What you suggest amounts to the paper of record ignoring possibly criminal (that's right, fraud is illegal) action by our elected government. What is wrong with you? Yawn as much as you want, it won't make this go away.
No, a system with proper checks and balances should redact the article on the advisement of either board. On one side you have a question of national security, and on the other side you have an ex-NSA guy who wants his name in the NYT. Hmm, tough choice.