The New York Times scrubs article in favor of FBI
Glenn Greenwald has a piece up regarding the latest instance of the FBI’s bizarre and unconscionable practice of convincing disturbed Muslim youths to carry out what they believe to be terrorist attacks over the course of months of nudging, after which point the agency arrests the youth and proclaims a victory in the war on terror, a struggle that might be better fought by spending those resources to go after those who are concocting their own plots without assistance from the FBI. Although this has quickly become a common story – although not a “story” in the sense of being properly reported by the media at large – a particular detail of the subsequent media presentation strikes me as worth repeating here:
But strangely, while all other conversations with Mohamud which the FBI summarizes were (according to the affidavit) recorded by numerous recording devices, this conversation [in which Mohamud allegedly expresses his desire to kill civilians] — the crucial one for negating Mohamud’s entrapment defense — was not. That’s because, according to the FBI, the undercover agent “was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting. However, due to technical problems, the meeting was not recorded” (para. 37).
Thus, we have only the FBI’s word, and only its version, for what was said during this crucial — potentially dispositive — conversation. Also strangely: the original New York Times article on this story described this conversation at some length and reported the fact that “that meeting was not recorded due to a technical difficulty,” but the final version omitted that, instead simply repeating the FBI’s story as though it were fact: “undercover agents in Mr. Mohamud’s case offered him several nonfatal ways to serve his cause, including mere prayer. But he told the agents he wanted to be ‘operational,’ and perhaps execute a car bombing.”
I am constantly reminded that there remain a great number of people who still believe that the media in general and The New York Times in particular operate under a conscious and deliberate agenda by which to undermine America and its government. As someone whose entire life revolves around the undermining of America and its government, I would simply note that the NYT has not been particularly helpful.
I have told this story in the past. I will tell it again to you now… in the hopes that you will internalize it and remember it the next time it may be relevant.
My grandfather asked me “do you want some candy?”
I said “yes! I want some candy!”
He slapped me upside the head and told me: ” Don’t Trust Anybody.”
Barrett?
Don’t trust anybody.Report
I’m not entirely sure what lesson you’re trying to teach me or in what context, although I certainly enjoy these sorts of koans. Perhaps you could you spell it out for me?Report
I am constantly reminded that there remain a great number of people who still believe that the media in general and The New York Times in particular operate under a conscious and deliberate agenda by which to undermine America and its government.
Nonsense. That would imply consciousness and deliberation. The management and op-ed folks operate purely out of the visceral. They undermine America out of acculturation.
The news division remains ace, although mindful of their jobs. If you ever want to know the truth from an NYT article, just read backwards: the truth is buried in last 5 paragraphs, continued on p. 32. Only fools take their truths from the first 5 grafs. For the mindful reader, what’s above the fold is an ideological mulligan. We understand these people need to keep their jobs.Report
Well, I agree with you that the deficits of the NYT are due to something other than ideology – largely careerism, a sort of establishment “seriousness,” and the various other factors that come into play within any such institution, and will have more to say on the subject later as my next book hinges in large part on those sorts of dynamics.Report
Should you make a study of the first 5 paragraphs of an NYT story vs. the last 5, I’m confident you will have more than enough for a useful and honest book. Cheers.Report
Thus to define the boundaries of acceptable liberalism? (Ie. “What do you mean Mohamud might not have said that? Are you some kind of nut? Even the Liberal New York Times…”)Report