|
|
August 29, 2006All the news that’s fit to read elsewhere UPDATED:::UPDATE::: The NY Times continues its inexorable slide into utter irrelevance:The New York Times’ Web site is blocking British readers from a news article detailing the investigation into the recent airline terror plot, turning its Internet ad-targeting technology into a means of complying with U.K. laws. “We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law,” Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said Tuesday. “It’s a country that doesn’t have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country’s law.” [emphasis added - admin] Visitors who click on a link to the article, published Monday, instead got a notice explaining that British law “prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.” The blocked article reveals evidence authorities have in the alleged plot to use liquid explosives to down U.S. airliners over the Atlantic. I don’t get it. If it’s a country with a free press, what’s the problem here, NY Times? Blue Crab Boulevard has some thoughts: “…this is supposed to be the mighty defender of the free press and the right of the people to know. And this is what they are doing? Blacking out news based on where you come from? Anyone else see the deadly danger this presents? The New York Times has the potential to turn the whole world into China. Think about it. This a particularly bad move on the part of the Times.” I get the distinct impression that the NYTimes considers itself a sovereign state unto itself, able to do as it pleases and answerable to no one. Not even, it seems, the stockholders, who cannot be happy. Blue Crab has more on the actual details of the bombing plot, btw. Sticky Notes wonders why the NY Times is so fastidious about UK’s case, while caring nothing for classified info in America. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/08/29/all-the-news-thats-fit-to-read-elsewhere/trackback/ 5 Responses to “All the news that’s fit to read elsewhere UPDATED” |
August 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Actually, in this instance, the Times may be in the right. I remember hearing about this law several years ago, in the wake of a major crime (I no longer remember what it was). Basically, British law prohibits the public discussion of any criminal case before it has been tried, and that includes the press. If you were in England right now, you wouldn’t see any details about the case in any of their news media.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
All The News That’s Fit To Blackout
What this says - the NYT’s allegiance in NOT with America and is one more example of appeasement of the left. Everyone but America . International law above our Constitutional law.It’s the lack of consistency. It’s yielding to another country’s law…
August 30th, 2006 at 3:12 am
You wrote:
“I get the distinct impression that the NYTimes considers itself a sovereign state unto itself, able to do as it pleases and answerable to no one.”
But that does not even make sense. The wrote point of your entry was that the NYT had caved in to British law. They did not do as they wished. It seems like this was almost a “knee-jerk contempt” sort of posturing on your part. It sounds almost as if you were not reading your own writing, or at least not listening to yourself think as your wrote it.
And I must reply to the second comment above. Our constitution, dear and wonderful though it is, does not apply in any other country. When publishing in another country, the laws of that country apply. We Americans don’t like this sort of restraint of the press, of course, but our laws apply to us, not to England. The phrase “appeasement of the left” does not seem to have any actual meaning in this instance. Maybe just an automatic phrase to drag out whenever something needs to be said? It is OK to be disgusted by the NYT’s actions. But criticism of it must be grounded in reality. -=-Sean
August 30th, 2006 at 3:59 am
The Times IS “answerable to no one,” since it has made an unusual decision on this particular story, supposedly out of respect for UK law, but has not made this their habit or routine on other stories. A pal of mine in the press calls this situation nothing less than “bizarre.” The Times “does what she will.”
‘I’d say the Times acts pretty arbitrarily - “we’ll reveal what we choose and hold what we will and screw anyone who has a problem with it” seems to be the order of the day…hence, national security secrets are released, but the Times never much cared what Sandy Berger had in his pants. As to the constitution - I’m more than aware that it does not apply to other countries, but I can’t help appreciating the irony that the Times has such respect and consideration for the UK’s prosecution of criminals while not much caring about (sorry to be redundant) someone like Berger. And I don’t think I actually wrote the words “appeasement of the left” anywhere. The NY Times disappoints me mightily…if you are a longtime reader, you know my heroes - until recently - have always been journalists.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:43 am
I don’t want to turn the comments into an ongoing conversation, but I realize the words “appeasement of the left” were not yours. I apologze. It seems I did not make it clear at that point that I was replying to a commenter’s comment, not your article. It’s important to keep attributions clear and make sure I know to whom I am talking. Sorry for the mix-up.