Why Did the NYT refuse to print 9/11 Commission Scoop Re: Rove's Back-Channel Connection?

[kpete]

Why Did the NYT refuse to print 9/11 Commission Scoop Re: Rove's Back-Channel Connection?

01 February 2008
Did the NYTimes bury Philip Shenon's 9/11 Commission scoop
By: michael roston

Max Holland probably wrote the blog post of the week on Wednesday. He revealed that the New York Times' Philip Shenon's forthcoming book had a major scoop: Karl Rove had a line in to the Sept. 11 Commission, and the report's findings may have been dumbed down to favor Republican political tastes.

While some questions have been raised about the accuracy of Shenon's report, there's another matter that we need to address: why didn't Shenon's story run in the New York Times itself? Why was it saved for his book instead of run above the fold in America's paper of record?

The Commission's report came out in the Summer of 2004, and you'd have to think that some of this story about executive director Philip Zelikow's dilution of the report would have been in Shenon's hands sooner. It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't tell his Times' editors about this. White House interference in such an esteemed commission, trying to make sense of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath as it did, would be a story of the year in whatever year it emerged. So why 2008 instead of 2004 or 2005 or 2006? Did it really take so long for any of the disenchanted commission staff to be willing to come forward?

In fact, what's easier to imagine is that Shenon would have gone to his editors, but they would have held up the story for reasons that no one except the Times' editorial staff can understand.

more at:
http://www.veracifier.com/post/5476/did-the-nytimes-bury-philip-shenons-9-11-commission-scoop

[TexasObserver]

1. Because the NY Times is conservative, not liberal

that's why

[Yurovsky]

5. exactly ... why else would they have endorsed Hillary?

because she's a Haliburton-approved pro-war DINO.

It's time for America to wake up and realize that the major media outlets are all just extentions of the corporate slave masters. Sadly when we have candidates who might actually deliver us from this evil, such as Dennis Kucinich, the media crushes them before America has a chance to elect them.

Sigh...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. K & R. Why this question isn't asked more is a conundrum. The "bookwriters" seem to sit

pieces of information until they are no longer timely, and hope they appear less relevant that they really are, but just bombshell enough to sell the book.

It's disgusting and Woodward's books are another, of many, examples.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Wasn't This About The Time Of The Wiretap Story??

Weren't the Times editors sitting on that story...and were real skittish about throwing too much shit at the booosh regime. Also this was about the time Plamegate was starting to kick into gear and the Times still was compromised between defending Judy Miller (who was still on their payroll) and admitting they'd been used in the run-up to the Iraq war. Add to that the highly partisan atmosphere where the paper was under constant attack from the right wing and the "mighty wurlitzer" was at its loudest.

No passes here on an opportunist stenographer trying to cash in on withholding important information, but the Times still has a lot of accounting...unfortunately they're getting harassed by the boosh regime. TPM reported subpoenas have been going out to Times reporters still...a definite harassment tactic.

I recall discussion here around that time when boooosh and cheney were to testify and how political that dog and pony show was done. Nothing under oath or in writing...we still have little clue what was really said...and we all knew that Rove was pulling strings on this. Also...the initial findings were spun to make it appear this regime was not cupable but we soon learned that wasn't the case...but the initial spin is what the corporate media ran with during the '04 campaign.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Yup. The Bushites probably have wiretaps on all NYT editors, owners and reporters,

and have dirt on them all. Plus internet snooping, mail snooping, remote sound and photo snooping, studying their book reading habits at the NY public library, and god knows what else. They can do whatever they want, with impunity. Same is more than likely true of other big news venues, our Democrats in Congress, candidates, political activists, state secretaries of state in charge of elections, and anyone else the Bush Junta feels like spying on, setting up, blackmailing or killing. (Are you familiar with the David Kelly facts? Brit weapons expert and whistleblower found dead under highly suspicious circumstances four days after the Plame outing; his office and computers were searched, and, four days after that, the entire Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network, headed by Plame, was additionally outed--putting its covert contacts/agents around the world at risk of getting killed.) The Bush Junta has long reach, and there are no controls on them. None.

The NYT/DLC establishment wanted the war. So that could be motive for suppressing information against the Bushites. But another motive could be fear of death. Also, fear of exposure of something (blackmail).

Hard to know, in this cauldron of corruption that our nation's political establishment has become.

[L. Coyote]

6. Same reason they coverud up Bush's illegal eavesdropping. They enable the JUNTA!

[CGowen]

7. The NYT won a lawsuit over the "Oral Histories" and published them online, but there was no article

really mentioning it's explosive content.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf