Better late than never, I guess. This nyt editorial makes probably the most concise and compelling case for John Kerry that I have seen.
What I think happened is they got put on the White House shit list for some recent things, like the recent piece by ron suskind in the nytmag, and they decided they had nothing to lose by finally expressing an honest forthright opinion.
Where have they been the last three years?
There turns out to be this incestuous relationship between journalists who need this thing called “access” to government sources. This administration has been exceedingly disciplined about denying this essential stuff to those whom it hates.
In order to maintain what they thought was a competetive footing vis-a-vis other outlets like the post or (though they disdain to admit it, broadcast and cable tv networks), many journalists and editors compromised themselves, publishing mealy-mouthed half truths (pretty much anything safire or will and many others have written for the past decade) and sometimes even propagandistic falsehoods (e.g. julie miller’s phony reports from the “front”), in order to maintain at least a functioning relationship with their “sources”.
This, as it turns out is a doomed strategy, unless your intent is to forfeit all credibility as a journalist, and admit that you’re essentially a tool of the administration.
Now there is at least some hope that we won’t have to deal with this administration in the future, they are perhaps already trying to cultivate the next bunch as favored “sources” in the event they prevail on election day.
If Kerry does not unseat Bush (and most of us dare not allow ourselves to even contemplate that eventuality), can we expect this newspaper at least to assume a more openly antagonistic posture, or will it return to its role a priori of cowed supplicat?