Did NYT Co. Corp Board loan Judy to WH in exchange for NYC TV Station?

[McCamy Taylor]

Trying to figure out why the corporate masters of New York Times Corp. would allow Judy Miller to trash the reputation of the jewel in their media conglomerate crown. Sure, maybe they share a right wing bias with Rupert Murdoch. Or maybe it is about Israel. However, I would like to propose that it is all about money. Specifically, that back in Sept, 2001 the Bush administration through Michael Powell proposed changes in federal media ownership rules that would allow the NYT Co. to own both a newspaper and a TV station in NYC. The media ownership rules were good for other media players too, like Fox and Viacom, and they also did favors for the WH, but I think the NYT went above and beyond the call of duty.

What if they instructed Sulzberger to give Judy Miller---renowned for her right wing politics and propensity for lying--free rein. What if they turned a blind eye as she hyped the non-existent WMD with stories that would not have made the cut at a high school news paper. What could go wrong? Rummie had told the nation that we would win the war in a couple of months. Then, we would control a ton of oil. Everyone would be happy. No one would care how we got there. Did anyone really blame Hearst for his "yellow journalism" and the Spanish American War?

Here is what NYT owns. Note no NYC TV :

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/nyt.asp

Two links to Bush's Media Ownership Changes:

http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership/chart.html

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/fcc/

Now, no one WANTS to believe that the NYT would ever do anything for money. I posted this theory at Salon and the response seems to be "No, they did it for ideology." But, I dont know. When you are the NYT, does not Judy Miller represent a flawed ideologic tool? However, she is just crass enough to use when your goals are purely mercenary.

How I wish there were a special prosecutor for the media propaganda machine that lead to our troops and innocent Iraqis dying. "We made the Reich with Propaganda" Goebels said. He was one of the biggest war criminals back then. It should still be a war crime.

[EVDebs]

1. The CIA and other intell acronyms deal in 'Invisible Government'

CIA's Op Mockingbird
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

read this carefully, DUers. You will have gone thru the looking glass. Maybe that's why Judy's testimony was 'limited' according to reports of the deal Fitzgerald made with her.

Some threads in the investigation are radioactive and the invisible government wouldn't like that.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Yeah, but CIA didnt want us to invade IRAQ. No credible agency did.

Only thing Bush and Co. offer their allies (that I have heard of so far) is lots of government welfare in the form of relaxed regulation and no-bid contracts.

[EVDebs]

4. Tenet apparently did. That's all * needed and keeping Powell in the dark

along with Congress. And voila, a recipe for turd pie.

[peacetalksforall]

3. I think you're right. In whatever form... dollar bills, favors, benefits

transferable to their board or their big advertisors...whetever - it involved money. I think they may have also benefited from Israel and in their pompous arrogance believed that they, like PNAC, would never get caught. They threw journalistic ethics to the wind becuse they had already agreed to become a USSR Izvetzia-Pravda propaganda cog in the right wing cabal machine. Let's just admit it - they morphed, but I'm not sure which year it occurred. As we learn our secret history, retroactively, it may have been in the 30's. If Judy was all about a head nod to the CIA and a previous administration - we're talking 30 years, at least?

Bring on the WSJ. We already know plenty about the Washington Post. And, let's once and for all, expose USA Today for what it is.