Saturday, October 16, 2004

The New York Times -- getting shittier by the day

Just when you're convinced that the New York Times has pretty well bottomed out in terms of journalistic ethics and integrity and what have you, they can still manage to take your breath away. I refer to the ongoing brouhaha regarding Sinclair Broadcasting's plan to force their affiliated stations to broadcast an anti-Kerry propaganda diatribe, "Stolen Honor", only days before the election.

If you want the sordid details, take some time and read the pieces assembled at truthout here. And what does the Times have to do with this? According to a paragraph in the Times editorial reproduced there:

"Eighteen Democratic senators asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Sinclair from broadcasting the new film, but the commission was right to refuse. As painful as it is to defend this agency, which has shown more interest in Janet Jackson's breast than in really doing its job, we believe that the federal government cannot indulge in that sort of prior restraint."

Ooooookay ... so even though it's the FCC's job to enforce guidelines of fairness for the public airwaves, the Times seems to believe that the FCC should keep its hands off of what appears to be a clear violation of same. Which makes that editorial's very next sentence a bit of a shocker:

"But the F.C.C. also cannot ignore Sinclair's poor record when it comes to meeting its obligation to act responsibly and fairly in the public interest, a duty it assumed when it accepted custody of a license to broadcast on the public airwaves. Broadcasting "Stolen Honor" within two weeks of the election would clearly violate those commitments."

Got that? According to the Times, the FCC should not get involved and enforce their own broadcasting guidelines, even though it openly admits that Sinclair's move would "violate" FCC-enforceable commmitments to journalistic fairness.

As I've warned before, don't try this sort of paralogical hypocrisy at home, boys and girls. The New York Times -- your so-called "liberal media".

No comments: