Peas In A Pod

Why, the BBC and the New York Times, of course.  (props to Ace of Spades)

First, the BBC.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

Well, that's the first step, admitting that there is a problem.

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct' it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Hands across the sea, and all that.  Then there's the NY Times, whose 'public editor' (ombudsman) Byron Calame wrote today that his paper really shouldn't have exposed the terrorist financing intelligence program.  No, really.

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Actually, it's not really a close call, but go ahead and indulge yourself.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused.

Ahem.  Would it not have been preferable for the Times to assess these two factors fully before publication?  I ask only because it has to do with national security.

The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication.

Let me see if I understand this.  The media should assess national security programs, and if they don't feel there is appropriate oversight then exposing the program is acceptable and necessary?  This was flawed logic from the start.

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

John Hinderaker looked for that "vicious criticism" and found none.  However, the degree of criticism should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the argument.  Either the argument is reasonable and supported, and therefore defendable, or it is not.  In this case, it was not.

I think it's wonderful that Mr. Calame is able to reassess his work and declare the error of his ways, though he buried it in the latter third of his column.  Would that the editors of the Times would do the same, but that's unlikely to happen.

After all, admitting that there's a problem is the first step.  The Times would first have to examine itself as the BBC has done.

Earlier:
The Times Is At It Again
It's Always Been A Matter Of Trust

Others:  Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed, Tom Maguire, The Squiggler, The Anchoress,

Comments

[Ken McCracken]

And what repurcussions will the New York Times suffer for their harmful revelations?

Why, none, of course, which is why such leaks will continue.

After all, there is no downside for the Times when they get it wrong, now is there.