Who speaks for the people? Who is watching out for the interests of the masses or as Leo Strauss calls us "the vulgar masses". It's been known for quite some time know by anyone that pays attention that "liberal media bias" or the "so called liberal media" (SCLM) is a myth. The mainstream corporate media is not liberal. The reporters, if liberal, are not allowed to choose the stories or the contents of their stories by their moderate to conservative editors and corporate managers. The other fact that none of those doing the reporting will mention is that they are now celebrities and have "lifestyles" to support. No longer is the grizzled, blue collar, living form paycheck to paycheck, old reporter -- investigative reporter back them -- running around trying to get the story. It's a pretty face, male or female, that has a few government sources doing what is best for the bottom line and what their boss says is best for the country. The point here is if it benefits the reporter more financially, professionally and socially to, shall we say, shade the truth a little can you blame them? These folks are not looking out for the vulgar masses. It looks like all we have is the internet.

Robert Parry who was ostracized from the media because he wanted to report the truth about the Iran-Contra affair helps fill us in, NYT's Apologies Miss the Point. The bottom line to the whole Judy Miller NY Times story to me is that she was told things by Chalabi and his people, who were pro-war, and checked it by going to the government who was paying Chalabi and his people to gather the intelligence for them. So in essence she was checking it against the same information so how could it not check out?





Do you remember Wen Ho Lee? He was a supposed spy at Los Alamos. He was portrayed by those in the media at the time, coincidentally even the New York Times, as the next Rosenbergs. Well guess what? The next Rosenberg case was a dud, Wen Ho Lee is free:

Today Lee walked out of prison with no restrictions whatsoever, after being held in solitary confinement since last December. And the same federal prosecutors stood before the media and pronounced themselves happy with the result. Case closed. Job well done.

So what happens now when we find out a non U.S. citizen has taken us for a ride? Defend him, that's what:

Mr. Chalabi's allies in Washington also saw the Bush administration's decision to sever its ties with Mr. Chalabi and his group as a cynical effort instigated by the C.I.A. and longtime Chalabi critics at the State Department. They believe those agencies want to blame him for mistaken estimates and incorrect information about Iraq before the war, like whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

One of those who has defended Mr. Chalabi is Richard N. Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board. "The C.I.A. has disliked him passionately for a long time and has mounted a campaign against him with some considerable success," Mr. Perle said Tuesday. "I've seen no evidence of improper behavior on his part. No evidence whatsoever."

Now I'm not sure if you remember the Republican reaction to the Wen Ho Lee case or not but they didn't have nice things to say about the President, and he didn't even invite Wen Ho Lee to a SOTU speech:

Before the Lee case ever came to light, Newt Gingrich had already charged that President Clinton "had approved turning over missile secrets to the Chinese." Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics subcommittee, claimed the president "betrayed the interests of our country," and Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., charged that Bill Clinton was "guilty of high treason."

But I guess you can call a President a traitor when we are not at war or if he is a Democrat.

Judy Miller is at it again, this is getting sad. From FAIR:

Former Oil-for-Food Director Criticizes Security Council, by Judith Miller and Warren Hoge (New York Times, 6/2/04). Amazingly, the Times continues to allow the discredited Miller to write about her favorite source, Ahmad Chalabi-- and she appears to still be carrying his water. The story refers to a list of supposed recipients of Iraqi kickbacks that was published by an Iraqi newspaper. Miller and co-author Hoge report that Chalabi's spokesperson says he was not pleased that this list was published:

He said Mr. Chalabi had not been happy when an Arab newspaper listed Mr. Sevan's name along with others for alleged special oil allotments under the program. ''The publishing of such names complicated the inquiry,'' Mr. Qanbar said.

What Miller and Hoge don't mention is that Chalabi has been widely reported as the source of that report (e.g., AP, 5/27/04). A recent Newsweek story (5/31/04) indicated that the whole story might be his work:

Chalabi has been running his own investigation into the United Nations' old Oil-for-Food program. By identifying Iraqi businessmen and political figures who were siphoning off money from the humanitarian program-- not to mention certain European and U.N. officials who may have had their hands in the till-- Chalabi could resort to playing a blackmail game.

What's more, when the story originally broke, this same Chalabi spokesperson seemed delighted (AP, 3/23/04)

The newspaper had a list of about 270 former government officials, activists and journalists from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from Iraqi oil sales. "Thousands of government and nongovernment officials and politicians were bribed, all under the nose of the United Nations," said Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for council member Ahmad Chalabi. "The United Nations allowed this to happen without interference. Some high-ranking U.N. officials were also involved."

Leaving out important information in order to better present the message of favored sources--that's exactly what Miller got in trouble for. And the Times is still letting her get away with it.

- posted by Mom/Dad @ 7:26 AM