No cautious optimism allowed
New York Times public editor Byron Calame -- and the Times as an institution -- are a disgrace. They've taken the "citizen of the world" idea and embraced its anti-Americanism.
At the end of Calame's Sunday column, we learn that the Times' chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, was recently reprimanded for comments he made on the Charlie Rose show.
What did Gordon say that was beyond the pale?
“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.”
The horror!
I had to read that quote twice before it really sunk in; there's a Times reporter who actually wants the U.S. to win. Who'd have thunk it?
And for voicing that bit of heresy, what happens?
I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.
“I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.”
It’s a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman — and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon.
As they indispensible Timeswatch points out, it wasn't too difficult to find a different Times reporter who appeared on the Charlie Rose show who voiced a contrary opinion -- one that didn't result in a public smackdown.
He should have been like his colleague Neil MacFarquhar, who works the Muslim-American beat, and who advanced his own liberal opinion on the Charlie Rose show, without any caveats about it being his "own personal view" (although it obviously was).
MacFarquhar appeared on "Charlie Rose" last July and slipped in this anti-Bush, America-critical personal commentary:
“If you talk to people my age -- I’m in my mid-40s -- and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation.”
Don't hold your breath on MacFarquhar getting the Gordon treatment.
0 comments on “No cautious optimism allowed”
Tags
[...] I’d like to invite readers to scan my post from earlier this week “No cautious optimism allowed” and ponder the reaction of the New York Times to their reporter’s comments on the Charlie Rose show compared to what the likely reaction will be from the Post regarding Arkin’s comments. [...]