"Bush Derangement Syndrome - continues."

Yesterday, like every other Sunday, Susan handed me the New York Times "Week in Review" section that includes the editorial and opinions pages...and smiled a little. From time-to-time she'll point out a Maureen Dowd piece as being especially good - or warn me that this week's Frank Rich position is liable to make me "throw an embolism!" Yesterday she just said, "at least their Editor's being honest!" So I was forewarned about what I'd find when I finally picked up the section after finishing the Comics in the Newark Star Ledger.

[ I guess it was during 9th Grade sometime when we were all taught about the various sections of a newspaper. During that lesson we learned that on the Editorial pages, a "newspaper"- meaning specifically its' editor, publisher, and owner - tell the public when they really think. They state their beliefs, they voice their opinions on important issues, they promote their objectives both local and national, and they "state" their politics. I guess that's what's called "editorial license." Think "Citizen Kane" and William Randolph Hearst and you pretty much get the picture! ]

In short, while in every other section of the paper the publisher is suppose to assure a candid, non-opinionated report of the news....in the Editorial/Op Ed section, they can be just as "biased" as they want to be - or feel they need to be. How blatant can their bias get? Well, of course no newspaper wants to blatantly come right out and tell you this, but here's an analogy for the way I see it - if some night you find yourself talking to a guy wearing a sheet and a pointy white hat, among a group of similarly garbed folks, all standing around a big burning cross - well, let's just say I wouldn't be the one to start singing, "We Shall Overcome!" Oh yeah, that's how obvious their bias can be!

On Thursday last week, I wrote that journalists and reporters might not know they're doing it. On the other hand....Publishers and Editors absolutely, 100%, do!

That's why I called this post, "Bush Derangement Syndrome - continues." I could have easily added "at the New York Times." It also explains my wife's comment. Yesterday, right below the paper's "Masthead," ran an editorial entitled "Abdicate and Capitulate." Immediately I knew this was going to be another Times editorial bashing President Bush for hijacking the government for his personal gain. I was right. The editorial dealt with George Bush ramming the Mukasey Attorney General confirmation through Congress with assistance from blood thirsty Republicans and "cozy" Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein! ("Cozy," I like that!) Like every other Liberal talking point in print or on the tube last week, the Times stressed that it was the Bush/Cheney/White House "coven" that wouldn't allow AG Mukasey to answer the question concerning "water boarding - torture or interrogation technique?" You want to know how bad Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) has become at the NY Times? Long about the 3/4 point through the editorial, there appeared the following paragraph/sentence....(my text enhancement added!)

"The real reason the White House would not permit Mr. Mukasey to answer was the risk to federal officials who carried out Mr. Bush's orders to abuse and torture prisoners after the 9/11 attacks: the right answer could have exposed them to criminal sanctions."

So there's the major headline regarding what the New York Times believes and hammers home to its readership daily and weekly..... MR. Bush, (never granting him the honor of the title he earned), personally ordered the abuse and torture of prisoners! Unequivocal - seemingly dispassionate - stated as fact. And like I told you last week - most of the people who read this stuff, just assume it's true because it's printed in the Editorial Section of the New York Times!

What if they didn't have the same 9th Grade class describing newspapers that I had? What if they don't have someone to remind them that this - is - just - an - opinion? Well, this is how BDS spreads. Tell someone a lie long enough and they start to believe it!

One wonders....if an individual only gets their news from the NY Times, Washington Post, "60 Minutes," CBS, NBC, MSNBC or some similar liberal outlet, how will they ever be able to understand what is truthful in the world? Maybe the Times should change their motto to, "All the News that's fit to Slant."

Here's a fitting way to summarize how Americans should "weigh the truthfulness" of what they read in newspapers - especially the NY Times. It's a quote from Thomas Jefferson...he said, "Nothing can now be believed that is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." I have to say that I agree.

Dum Spiro Spero!