A New York Times Intervention

You all know what an intervention is, right? It's when people gather around someone in denial, and give him facts to help force him away from that denial and into treatment. Thomas Lifson is intervening with the New York Times, although the denial may be too deep for there ever to be a breakthrough. A little history. A few days ago, Lifson caught the New York Times in a very big mistake: it had published a photograph of some pathetic looking Pakestinis standing by a weapon, and had said the photograph showed a piece the missile that failed to kill Zawahiri. The problem, as Lifson pointed out, is that the weapon is, in fact, an unexploded shell, utterly unrelated to the missiles used in the strike. Lifson chastised the New York Times for having no idea what it was publishing, and for letting its forum be used for propaganda. The article got lots and lots of air play. Out of the blue, Lifson received a colorless email that apparently comes from the New York Times' editorial offices. It states baldly that the AFP gave it the wrong information, which has since been corrected. This colorless not-apology gives Lifson the chance to write, at length, about the New York Times' myriad failures: the failure to have people who actually know about the military on their staff, the failure to be appalled at the fact that "the paper of record" was used as the dupe for enemy propaganda, and much more. It's a great article, and I urge you to read it. Talking to Technorati: New York Times, Propaganda, Afghanistan