WATCH: Judith Miller on Fox News 'There is a bias against Israel in the American press'

[Jefferson23]

Of all people


Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller slammed the newspaper's recent coverage of Israel's current military operation against Gaza.


By Haaretz | Jul. 12, 2014 | 2:46 PM

Judith Miller on Fox News Friday discussed the American media’s coverage of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. Miller argued, “Israelis are extremely upset about the coverage in the most influential American newspaper, which is the New York Times. There was a front page story this morning about extremism within Israel.” Miller, who formerly worked in the New York Time’s Washington bureau, left the paper in 2005 after fallout from her role in the Valerie Plame affair.

Miller went on to say, “What is often missing in the context of this crisis, is the context,” referring to the New York Times referencing the kidnapping and murder of a Palestinian teen, but leaving out the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens, events which took place immediately before the current conflict. In reference to the role the U.S. may play in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Miller said, “If President Obama wants to be a mediator here, with whom is he going to mediate, he cannot talk to Hamas, which is a terrorist organization with whom we are not supposed to be speaking.”


http://www.haaretz.com/news/video/1.604611

[elleng]

1. OH F*CK!

We REALLY want to hear from HER!

[Jefferson23]

2. I guess you can rank her as a reliable tool for aggression..given her history. n/t

[bemildred]

3. Cheney Is STILL Trying To Find A Link Between Saddam And Al-Qaeda

NEW YORK -- A couple of weeks ago, Dick Cheney, along with his daughter (rumoured to be the only willing collaborator), published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that sought to blame President Obama for "abandoning" Iraq in 2010, a withdrawal, the Cheneys' argued, that led to the current crisis in the region in which ISIS has taken control of land straddling both the Iraqi and Syrian borders.

The article was roundly pilloried in the media (this newspaper included), with Cheney and his fellow neoconservatives, along with Tony Blair, excoriated for refusing to take blame for the disaster now unfolding in Mesopotamia.

Having gained the media's attention, Cheney quickly reverted to the old neoconservative tactic of scaremongering, telling a radio show that the US will suffer a "far deadlier" terrorist attack than 9/11 before the end of the decade, likely to be a nuclear strike.

Despite utter condemnation for both offerings, Cheney returned this week, penning another opinion piece with his daughter (still the only willing collaborator) in The Weekly Standard in which the pair sought to provide the definitive "truth about Iraq".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/12/dick-cheney-is-still-trying-to-promote-a-link-between-saddam-and-al-qaeda_n_5580444.html

[Jefferson23]

5. lol

That is all I have to say about that.

[hlthe2b]

4. Proving once again, Judith Miller is NEVER right about ANYTHING...

BS propaganda doesn't work so well with your track record, Judith.

[Jefferson23]

6. You would think she would just go off into retirement, go away already. n/t

[ellenrr]

7. interesting. I woulda thot that people who bomb and kill civilians are the terrorists. nt

[bemildred]

8. No Lessons Learned at the NYT

The New York Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan acknowledges that the newspaper’s coverage of Iraq before President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion “was flawed, driven by outside agendas and lacking in needed skepticism.” But she says lessons were learned.

“Many Op-Ed columns and Times editorials promoted the idea of a war that turned out to be both unfounded and disastrous,” Sullivan wrote on June 29, adding that, in retrospect, the coverage “was the cause of much soul-searching for The Times” and that those lessons now are at the forefront of the Times’ handling of the new crisis in Iraq.

However, the real question isn’t whether the Times will make the same mistakes in flacking for an Iraq War sequel. As Sullivan noted, President Barack Obama – unlike his neocon predecessor – remains resistant to dispatching U.S. combat forces to Iraq.

The more pertinent question is whether the Times’ coverage of other crises, particularly in Syria and Ukraine, has suffered from the same lack of journalistic integrity that beset the Times’ handling of the run-up to the Iraq invasion. On that score, an objective observer would have to say that little has changed.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/12-2

[Jefferson23]

9. True, they haven't learned much. It is a shame, we need newspapers like the NYT. I don't think it

is a small thing to have lost..they still have tremendous resources of journalists around the
world. It makes me uneasy to see such a loss of trust.

[bemildred]

11. They don't want to learn, they just want their lost credibility back.

This is not new, they beshit themselves every time the government turns on the jingo music. I've been watching it all my life.

[Jefferson23]

12. Awful, we need much better than that. n/t

[louis-t]

10. And we should believe HER because

Why....again...?