The Dog That Just Won’t Bark

Saturday, January 21, 2006
Fallout continues regarding the NYT’s publication of an obviously-staged propaganda photo related to the recent US airstrike in Pakistan.

Here, for example, Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of The American Thinker, eviscerates NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller’s response to his criticism of that publication.

Lifson notes the 'curious incident' occasioned by Keller’s utter failure to bark at the AFP: “Bill Keller’s lack of protest over being had, his lack of evident resolve to get to the bottom of the situation, and his unwillingness to confront the actual criticism I made suggest some pretty ugly conclusions. He has been duped and he is content to pretend it is all just a little thing, not his fault, and that doesn’t matter very much, anyway.”

I wonder what Holmes would have made of it?


Buddy Larsen said...

From what I've read of Keller, that's his stock defense--to trivialize all complaints. Who knows, he may even mean it. That'd be even worse than lying, of course--but, heh heh, once inside the Ninth Circle, what difference does it make?

Peter UK said...

Keller is a Liberal,a fundamentally nice, decent and very moral human being,he could not possbly scar his karma by knowing anything about nasty destructive weaponry...are you trying to curdle his latte?

Peter UK said...

Ok,so i lied, he's a journalist.

Julian Biggs said...

it seems to me there's an interesting analogy here with the way the best of the rest of corporate america changed its attitude towards customer complaints some time in the 80's, i think. before then, the standard method for dealing with complaints was to make it as hard as possible for the consumer to express them (ergo: there weren't any!)
more enlightened organizations tried reversing course and implemeting ways to make it easier to air complaints so they could actually be (gasp) fixed.

The blogosphere has developed norms that stand in stark contrast to those of the legacy media among which is the idea that input and criticism should be encouraged and, if valid, immediately incorporated. a blogger's credibility goes up, not down, when he or she is big enough to apply such criticism to a higher goal. not (or at least less) so, the MSM.

Buddy Larsen said...

Refusal to grant legitimacy to others, per one's own whim, is the fail-safe, catch-22 defense of one's fraudulence. "I can't be a fraud if you say so!"

Rick Ballard said...


Keller's "customer base" are the class B shareholders who control the board - the Sulzberger family. If Pinch is the shining light of the family then we may safely assume that we are speaking of a group who indivually and as a whole have diffculty in finding the exit in elevators.

Keller's safe until he has to cut the dividend (which keeps being raised regardless of poor performance). What will finally clip Keller is New York City advertisers waking up to the fact that the advertising rate sheet used by the NYT deserves a prize for original fiction. That or some sharp attorney spearheads a Class A shareholders suit in federal court (can a shareholder suit be brought in federal court?) - and gets a venue change to a rosy red area of the country. I would also think that any brokerage house that has the Class A on a "buy" list is susceptible to a malfeasance action.

Buddy Larsen said...

Speaking of 'editorial' photos--

Buddy Larsen said...

Walter Shapiro oscillates between 'the war is killing Bush's polls' and 'Bush will use the war to win in '06'.

The Dems are so sharp these days.

Julian Biggs said...

rick - i'm sure you saw this:

Knucklehead said...

There is so much potential within that picture that it just boggles the mind.

There's the Lifson and NYT takes on it: the NYT is so calcified in their ideoligcal view and/or so unprofessional that they cannot even review a single instance of their reporting with a critical eye; it is a simple and meaningless error made for one caption for one photo for one story, and by another media organization at that.

But beyond all that is the enormous untold stories the photo is freighted with. And elder and a young man stand astride a large caliber, unexploded artillery shell amid the wreckage of a building. Thre is so much there that two working days by even a medium capability writer could produce well more than the standard 1000 words each picture carries.

Every picture tells a story, don't it? This one, whether taken at face value or within the context of its publication, tells several stories. The NYT seems completely uninterested in any of them let alone all of them.