"THE" NY Times "scandal"

The main issue of this case is that it's a test of affirmative action. There are many signs that the reporter was simply hired for his race and not for any particular journalistic skills he happened to have. This rubs some people the wrong way, go figure.

This is certainly the spin the corporate media has been putting on this -- that it's not a systematic flaw, it's not a problem at higher levels, it's simply, sigh, oh gosh, a case of this poor misguided black man being put into a position he is incapable of handling. They worked over time to present this image. What they didn't mention is that his transgressions are nothing new, that many a white journalist has done (and generally gotten away with) the same thing.

In 1961, the New York Times ran an AP article on an important meeting between UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold and Rhodesian President Moise Tshombe. The article was headlined, "Tshombe Confers With UN Chief On Katanga Truce," and went on to describe in great detail the meeting between the two leaders. The article descrbied how the meeting went on for over an hour, where and when it took place, and what was discussed. The problem is, Dag Hammarskjold had actually been killed when the plane he was flying in crashed en route to Rhodesia the day before. The meeting had never taken place.

Many times corporate journalists write about events they didn't actually witness, while giving the impression that they did. They often lie, make up facts, or spin facts in less than honest ways. It's one thing when an individual journalist does this on his or her own, as in the recent NY times case. More disturbing is when this happens -- as it so often does -- as a systemmatic deception in the interest of furthering the goals of the corporate sponsors or owners of the media outlet in question. A good example, which I have mentioned here before, is the case of NBC reporting on the weapons prowess possessed by the US during both wars with Iraq. NBC is owned by GE, which is one of the largest weapons contractors in the world. GE, the parent company of NBC, created many of these weapons, and stood to gain billions more through the continuation of lucrative contracts. NBC, meanwhile, showed the American public startling images of "smart bombs" so accurate they were going down chimneys and through doorways. This was portrayed as a "humane" war, because these great new weapons were so accurate they could hit military targets and leave civilians alone. NBC never disclosed the conflict of interest, the fact that they were actually broadcasting a commercial for themselves every time they reported on the supposed accuracy of these weapons.

It wasn't until long after the war was over that americans learned the truth -- and only in the fine print on the back pages. The fact is, the few clips that NBC continuously showed of bombs going down chimneys and through doorways were rare exceptions. In fact, more than 70% of the smart bombs actually missed their targets, and the majority of weapons used were not "smart bombs" at all. This was an intentional deception of the American people, and no one was ever fired over it.

There are so many examples of deliberate deception by the Times and other media outlets that I encourage you to go out and find your own. The fact is, the corporate media lies consistently, and for many more devious reasons than professional ineptitude. And no, this case wasn't "a test of affirmative action." Like discrimination, affirmative action has been around for awhile, and requires no more testing. But affirmative action serves as a good scape goat to deflect attention away from a legitimate concern about the veracity of the US corporate press.

(Anyone remember the female fighter pilot who crashed her plane and died? Remember how everyone blamed affirmative action for that too? Only later did the true crash statistics come out, showing how many male fighter pilots crashed and burned each year, and didn't make the news.)

Dear Catwoman,
Thank you for that response. No one has been so foolish as to accuse Colin Powell or Condi Rice of incompetence lately, right?

Though Powell and Rice both benefited from affirmative action programs, as they have pointed out while dissenting from the administration's attack on the University of Michigan's case before the Supreme Court, the problem with them is not lack of intelligence or skill. They are carrying out a war against the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S. corporate rulers. That is the problem.

I would like to point out that it is incredibly important when we (correctly) point out the shortcomings of mass media that our own data has to be exact. Moise Tshombe was not the "Rhodesian President" in 1961. That was impossible for two reasons, which I am sure that you can figure out.

And, in a fuller response to J., though his comment doesn't deserve it, there is a long list of reporters and editorial writers (and football coaches and Navy commanders...) who have been caught lately fudging facts. You tell me how many are African-American and how many are white men.

No, Jay, much though I would love to agree with you, and much though I agree with you that race is used as an excuse many times over, I agree with Cat Woman, that the Corporate folks would love for us to come away with the impression that, "gee whiz, we try to give these people a chance, and bend over backwards for them, but then look how they thank us." Ultimately, though it is simply that this hapless reporter was not kissing the right fanny at the right time. The times has already admitted how many other times he had "fudged the truth (fucked the truth)", and the powers that were chose to ignore the obvious clues, and complaints from fellow reporters This time, for whatever reason, they decided that they had had enough. THEN boy, all of newsdumb just jumped up and got all indignant, methinks they doth protest too loud.
Having attended many demonstrations here in Portland, observed the police and others in action, and then observed what the press had to say about the event should be enough to prove, on a very local level, just how selective, and how innacurate, the media can be. August 22 was a perfect example. to hear the press tell about it, there were maybe a hundred confused and disorderly persons who had no particular agenda but to disturb the feces, and "someone threw a bottle," and some other agencies may have used rubber bullets, etc, etc, but all in all, a pretty peaceful day, and all was goodness and light, except for the feces disturbers. Does anyone else remember the day as going any thing at all like that?
What about the wonderful photos we saw, just the other day, of the poor unfortunate who was gunned down by police for ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE AWAY? Was that not an attempt to slant the news? How many relatives of other persons who die or are killed have then to suffer again by having their obituary outline every past crime or sin the victim has ever committed. SLANT BIAS=Corporate Media. Don't call em, don't write em, and do not read/view them. It will rot your mind. If you do succumb, and see or read something that is untrue, do not bother trying to point it out to them, they already know. If you write or call, they can add you to their stats, as another viewer/reader, and sell more add space. Let em die in their own filth.

As has been pointed out many times before, George W is actually a case of failed affirmative action. He got into an ivy league university, despite his sub-retard intellectual deficits, because he was a "legacy." Simply put, he got into college because of who his family is. Legacy admissions favor rich little white pricks like him, because they come from wealthy parents who went there before them. It's not fair to the thousands of people who apply every year to ivy league universities with better qualifications but do not get in due to the slanted selection process. It's also not fair to the thousands of people who would LIKE to go to college every year, but who don't even apply because they can't afford it. Many, if not most, of them also have more potential and better qualifications than GW bush.

This is affirmative action that you don't hear much about. And GW benefitted not only in college, but also in employment. Not that he ever actually worked a day in his life, but he did have job opportunities that you or I would never have, all because his grandfather made a mint trading with the Nazis, and his father bought him: an oil stint, a baseball team, a governorship, a presidency. (Those last two, of course, are technically illegitiimate, but who's counting.)(Get it? Who's counting! HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.)

(And Not a Medic, first, where u been? And second, Tshombe wasn't the pres o Rhodesia? I thought he was too. (I mean, obviously it had another name then, but still. I read the same story somewhere, about the AP story coming out the next day, even though Dag's plane crashed. And Tshombe was listed as prez o rhodesia....)

And finally, yes, the corporate media is full of lies. This guy getting crucified for an all too common and seldom frowned upon practice is really strange. They certainly are trying hard to make a point about affirmative action. Wonder what's in the works now.

Since someone asked, Moise Tshombe was never president of Rhodesia because Rhodesia was a breakaway British colony which was ruled by white Africans. Specifically, Ian Smith was the first 'president' when Rhodesia declared itself independent of the British Empire in 1965 in order to maintain its white minority rule.

It is now known as Zimbabwe. And ruled by a slightly crazed former leader of the liberation forces who is a black African.

Moise Tshombe was a black African who was 'president' of Katanga, which broke away from the Congo. Both Belgian and U.S. corporate interests urged Tshombe to lead the rebellion against Patrice Lumumba, a black pan-Africanist who was the elected president of the Congo.

Why is this important?

First, as I wrote earlier, if you're gonna trash the mainstream media for making mistakes, whether ideological or just factual, then don't introduce more errors. Especially in the age of Google when anyone can fact-check all this stuff with a few keystrokes.
Second, the history of Africa is important to us. Don't believe me? Patrice Lumumba was killed with the assistance of the CIA. The Congo is the home of the world's largest uranium mine - and also the source of much of the uranium in the bombs that devastated Japan in 1945 - and established U.S. hegemony.

I would be interested in seeing a source for the original story cited by Cat Woman. And I don't write that to challenge her, since I generally agree with her analysis - and her tone.

I don't think it's necessary to cite examples of incorrect stories in major U.S. media to demonstrate the rule of ideology. The business pages of the newspaper generally don't muck up reporting on stock transactions, for example. They just 'forget' to mention that all profits are created by the exploitation of human labor.

Not a Medic is right. Tshombe was actually president of Katanga Province, in what was then Rhodesia. Hammarskjold had been on his way to Northern Rhodesia to meet with Tshombe regarding a truce in Katanga Province when his plane crashed. The next day, the story about the meeting that never happened was printed in the Times. The point of the story wasn't African history, but was simply the fact that the New York Times has a long history of such "errors," so that attributing this case to evidence of trouble with affirmative action, as J and the corporate media have attempted to do, is ludicrous.

However, not a medic is right, in my haste to make one point I should not have gotten sloppy in the details. Thanks, Medic. Oh, and I would like to give you the source for the story, but it's been awhile since coming across that tidbit of information. Still, it wasn't the source but simply my haste to make a point while on my way out the door which introduced the technicality.

This brings up another point, though. As not a medic points out, African history is both rich and important, and is intimately connected with our own. Yet a skewed presentation of that history gives us a lopsided view of the world. We catch only rare glimpses of events in Africa in mainstream media, which impairs out ability to make sound decisions about the world. Even simple decisions, like whether we should, for example, eat chocolate or buy diamonds. (Both industries rely heavily upon virtual slave labor in different parts of Africa.) So thanks, Medic, for the correction. I wouldn't want to add to the problem of slighting Africa in the media. (Yet another reason why indymedia rocks -- instant clarification when errors do occur. )

Thanks Not a Medic and CatWoman for clearing that up. You're right. There's a lot to know about the world. This is all very interesting. And yes, as you both say, it's silly to blame this fiasco on affirmative action.