The NYT public editor's closing lines:

It’s a good move. I’d have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration’s drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.

Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.

This is a cleverly written close. The final graph, a single sentence, refers to the importance of understanding an enemy. The preceding graph is not about al Qaeda--it is about the administration.

GG's stubborn pursuit of this is ruining my parrot model. Parrots do not have agendas. I'm troubled. A fine piece GG, and another fine find by sysprog re: the Hoyt interview. The Times did well to hire the guy--this, at least, speaks well for them.

Gag orders on scientists, outing of covert agents, smearing of Viet Nam vets like Max Cleland. Those are attacks on public servants. Outrageous and Disgusting Hypocracy.

GG sez:

This is a disgraceful record that continuously exhibits the same journalistic sins and the same exceedingly transparent pro-war, pro-Bush bias, not just bias that Gordon harbors personally but bias which time and again permeates his "reporting."

Personally, I don't view bias per se as a problem. I believe a biased reporter can write good stuff. Why, even some of my favorite bloggers exhibit biases on certain topics from time to time.

Someone commented earlier that Moyers talks about the early days of journalism (when journalists were referred to as "printers"), in which newspapers were heavily biased on one side or another. And Moyers sees the intertubes as a way to get back to that--he likes that scenario, or appears to.

To me, what is evil and harmful is unsubstantiated reporting, whether biased or no.

I owe a friend some blueberries.

I love tossing berries in a open tongue mouth.

Fun.

Thank you Bebop for your posts regarding in country.

(And may I add that my blueberry consumption has gone up 7000% since you've been talking about them...).

As for his background, she noted:

In Congress, Vitter became a reliable vote for the extreme right, earning a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union in 2002.

"“The ACU doesn't rate presidents, but a president can rate you. This is a fine group of decent citizens, principled citizens, and tonight I am proud to stand with the ACU.”

—President George W. Bush, 2004

"Conservatives all across America can be proud of what ACU has accomplished over the years. Moreover, its future promises a vital role in the struggle to return our nation to the principles upon which it was founded."

—Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC)"

It's particularly unfortunate that a political reporter is filing a report reflecting boredome on the same day that the Judiciary Committee chair and ranking member are debating important issues on the Senate floor--regarding the nature of american justice, the mal-administration of the Justice Department, and whether or not the president is attempting to place himself above the rule of law. Saw it on CSPAN last night and found it anything but boring (although Specter came across as completely confused).