Sunday, February 15, 2004
DROPPING THE BALL AT THE TIMES
The Nation’s “Paper of Record” is Just So Confused
Look, Bill Keller, you and the rest of the gang at the New York Times knew this coming, “this” being the Bush administration’s unbearably and unconscionably tardy release of what they are calling “all” of the records pertaining to the president’s at best spotty participation in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.
So, why, may I, a devoted reader, ask, wasn’t your staff fully prepared for the event?
“In Haze of Guard Records, a Bit of Clarity,” by David Barstow, is a pretty lame, and obviously uncertain and confused, assessment of the documents released by the White House. (I concede, however, that as with all media time is of the essence, and readers benefit from getting at least something rather than nothing.)
I suppose the link to Barstow’s article from the Times homepage, which states, with uncharacteristic honesty, “Guard Record Resists Easy Review,” might help readers understand that the Times still hasn’t decided what the heck ever went on back then, let alone whether President George W. Bush went absent without leave (AWOL) or, worse, was a deserter under the operative laws of the period.
But, may I remind you, Mr. Keller, first impressions mean a great deal in politics, almost everything, in fact, and because the Times apparently didn’t have a reporter fully up to speed on this issue, a matter of extreme importance that unjustifiably has been lingering for in the background for years (and “lingering” isn’t quite the right word, because more astute outlets beyond the so-called mainstream media have been pounding this issue with informed commentary since before the turn of the century).
Within so narrow a timeframe as the Karl Rove and the gang have granted you, Mr. Keller, the Times, and the rest of what passes for “the media” in this country, your paper’s inability to immediately, authoritatively, and convincingly issue a determination about President Bush’s highly questionable acts in the early 1970s already has left the field wide open -- and untended -- for the masters of the “sound bite”: your colleagues, if you will, at CNN, Fox News, talk radio AM, and among the Bush-lapping punditocracy.
What the hell is going on up there? Anything?
At the Washington Post it was no better. The Post’s first offering, “Many Gaps In Bush's Guard Records,” by Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, was similarly hesitant and cautious, though, sadly, and I think inappropriately, even more complimentary of President Play-Dough’s National Guard record.
The Rittenhouse Review |
Copyright 2002-2006 | PERMALINK |
|
|
|
CONTACT |
|
Send E-Mail
JAMES MARTIN CAPOZZOLA
|
|
BIO & STUFF |
|
James Martin (Jim) Capozzola launched The Rittenhouse Review in April 2002, TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse, HorowitzWatch, and Smarter Andrew Sullivan in July 2002, and Bulldogs for Kerry-Edwards in October 2004. He is also a contributing member of President Boxer.
He received the 2002 Koufax Award for Best Post> for "Al Gore and the Alpha Girls" (published November 25, 2002). Capozzola's record in the Koufax Awards includes two additional nominations for 2002 (Best Blog and Best Writing), three nominations for 2003 (Best Blog, Best Series, and Best Writing), and two finalist nominations in 2004 (Best Blog and Best Writing).
Capozzola’s experience beyond the blogosphere includes a lengthy career in financial journalism, securities analysis, and investment research, and in freelance writing, editing, ghost-writing, and writing instruction.
He earned his bachelor's degree in political science from the University at Albany and a master's in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia.
Capozzola lives in Philadelphia with his bulldog, Mildred.
|
PUBLICATION NOTES |
|
Posts pertaining to site developments, news, and updates are subject to deletion and to withdrawal, and with respect thereto, without notice.
~~~~~
Access to linked articles may require registration or subscription.
~~~~~
Linked articles are subject to expiration at the sole discretion of the original publisher.
~~~~~
Letters received by The Rittenhouse Review are subject to publication in full and with complete citation and attribution, including the sender's mailing and/or e-mail address and/or addresses, unless otherwise specifically requested in writing and at the time of submission.
~~~~~
The publisher reserves the right to confirm the identity and/or identities of each, any, and all correspondents through and by whatever means legal and necessary.
~~~~~
Any and all correspondence received and published hereat is subject to editing by the publisher for content, particularly but with no limitations implied thereto, with respect to vulgarity and other offensive language, and length, at the complete, full, and unhindered discretion of same.
~~~~~
The decision to publish each or any correspondence, if at all, rests solely with the publisher of this site.
~~~~~
The publisher retains copyrights to all original material here published and any submissions here received, including correspondence directed hereto, whether or not published hereat, unless otherwise specified.
~~~~~
Obviously, no provision is here made for immediate comments from readers.
~~~~~
All rights reserved and all that.
|
|
|
LINKS |
|
|
|
|