Too Little, and Far Too Late, from the Times
The New York Times can no longer live down its sorry reputation
by David J. Gonzo

Tuesday, September 26, 2000 -- NEW YORK (AmpolNS) -- The print media seems to be making quite the fuss about the full-page, quasi-hand-wringing editorial published in today's New York Times.

The lengthy "non-mea-culpa mea culpa," titled "The Times and Wen Ho Lee," seeks to deflect criticism of the once-great newspaper's mishandling of the entire Los Alamos "security breaches" story and the failed and abusive federal investigation into allegations of espionage on the part of Dr. Wen Ho Lee.

The gang of clowns led by "Howl" Raines essentially admit that they omitted most of the news that was not only fit to print but essential to a full understanding of the story as they proclaim that "we wish we had done differently."

Yep -- such as doing the basic vetting and fact-checking that the paper claims it did but, if it had done thoroughly, would have uncovered gaping holes in the FBI's case against Dr. Lee, or looking at other quite obvious ways in which what some hard-righters mischaracterize as America's secret nuclear "crown jewels" could be spirited from the defense labs at Los Alamos.

The editors also admit that the paper adopted the histrionic, panicked tone taken by some investigators -- public servants paid for by YOU whose demeanor might easily be assumed to stem from their politics rather than a search for facts -- and should have consulted other scientists inside and outside of government concerning just how "secret" the secrets were.

The team of editorial stooges admit that they were dupes for hard-righters in Congress by failing to fully disclose the political context of the Los Alamos and Lee imbroglios -- while asserting wrongly that the broadsheet did not provide fuel for a witch hunt.  Gee, that's funny -- because all of the  well-known fishing expedition contractors who chair GOP committees and subcommittees were quoting the Times until the cows came home!

They also regret that their scathing profile of Dr. Lee "might have humanized him and provided some balance."

But the bottom line is that the Times is sticking to its original stories, claiming that they were carefully reported. "As a rule, we prefer to let our reporting speak for itself.... On the whole, we remain proud."

Right. Just as they're proud of the error-ridden Whitewater coverage by Jeffy Gerth and friends for which the paper has not issued corrections or retractions.

But what more should one expect from The New York Times?  It's still just another right-wing rag.

'Nuff said.