You don't like what the NYT is saying, don't buy the paper. The only people being harmed by this coverage are the Sulzbergers, should the Times be considered less reliable, and circulation/ad revenue decline.

Apparently Government sources from the CIA are gold, while Government sources from the Pentagon are dross. When, oh when, will the "light of the left" learn to be discriminating? Heh.

From the article cited in the post -

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam -- no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

Unfortunately, when major newspapers print false government claims as fact, far more people suffer than just the newspaper owners. Did you really not know that?

Our trolls have been dreaming of this moment all night. Now here they are with their one liners, doing everything they can to divert attention away from the truth.

As usual.

You two must be on payroll.

On February 27, 2007, Calame gently though clearly criticized an article by Gordon written about the Bush administration's "saber-rattling about Iranian intervention in Iraq" (and other articles on the same topic) on the ground that (a) Gordon's article violated the paper's rules on the use of anonymous government sources;

Joseph Palermo at HuffPo, and perhaps even you (or AL or Maha), listed Gordon's liberal use of anonymous sources before.

Now, let's deconstruct Gordon's sources:

Paragraph 1: "United States intelligence asserts";

Paragraph 2: "officials acknowledge";

Paragraph 4: "military officials say";

Paragraph 6: "The officials said";

Paragraph 6: "and we're not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran";

Paragraph 7: "Administration officials said";

Paragraph 8: "The Bush Administration is expected to make public this weekend";

Paragraph 9: "Information expected to be made public this weekend";

Paragraph 10: "According to American intelligence";

Paragraph 10: "American intelligence agencies do not believe";

Paragraph 11: "Robert M. Gates appeared to allude to this intelligence";

Paragraph 12: "Some American intelligence experts believe";

Paragraph 14: "the report continues";

Paragraph 15: "a senior administration official said";

Paragraph 16: "An American intelligence assessment described";

Paragraph 17: "Other officials believe";

Paragraph 20: "American military officers say";

Paragraph 21: "said Lt. Col. James Danna";

Paragraph 22: "Adm. William Fallon . . . alluded";

Paragraph 23: "Admiral Fallon said";

Paragraph 24: "Mr. Gates told reporters";

Paragraph 26: "American officials say";

Paragraph 30: "According to American intelligence agencies";

Paragraph 32: "Assessments by American intelligence agencies say";

Paragraph 33: "Marine officials say";

Paragraph 34: "American intelligence agencies are concerned";

Paragraph 34: "Gen. Peter Pace . . . said last week."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/michael-gordon-outdoes-ju_b_41097.html

And a later piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/michael-gordons-latest-p_b_44400.html

Someone asked the other day how many news outlets even have a news bureau in Baghdad? It may just no longer be possible for an American journalist to actually cover this war safely, or even dangerously, the way Joe Galloway and others did in Vietnam. The truth is that the military wants to control the news coming out of Iraq.

You left out Sidney Schanberg's comment at the end of the Cohen/ Solomon piece:

The rest is tragic history.

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

http://fair.org/index.php?page=2261

Why does the NYT continue to print verbatim and unquestioningly this maladministration's lies and war-mongering propaganda?

For the same reason Congressional dems keep caving to the bullying minority repugs.

The same reason abuse victims keep crawling back to their abusers, time and time again.

They're conditioned to be victims, to cringe and obey at the slightest frown from the bully who has controlled their lives for so long.

At the NYT, it's a Pavlonian response. The RWAs shout "liberal media!" and the NYT scrambles the stenographers.

White House Debating Whether To Announce "Intention" To Begin Withdrawing From Iraq Someday

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015063.php

The fear of the NYT that if it takes a skeptical view of the President who cried wolf, the nation might get bit, and the NYT might lose it's greatest asset, credibility, when in fact that is exactly what it is losing each day.

The fear of the American people who still believe "they" will kill us here if we don't keep killing them there.

The fear of a President who cannot change his position one iota for fear of looking like what he really knows he is, a coward.

Oddly, I thought, you didn't include in your post, Frank Rich's column about the real problem of the Bush administration, the cowardice that is the President. Or, even more amazing, the NYT's official editorial calling for an end to the Iraq occupation.

But then, those are only opinion, and readers are aware they speak as viewpoint and not fact. Hoyt's articles are the problem because they are opinion disquised as fact, and that for the trolls out there is the real problem and point, I assume, of your post.

Move him into David Brooks rotation and problem solved.

Satire from A Tiny Revolution

( http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001315.html )

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller today announced that the paper's longtime staff writer Michael Gordon is not an actual person, but rather a voice-activated tape recorder.

"I'm not sure why everyone didn't figure this out before now," said Keller, pointing to the fact that, in Gordon's 26-year career, all of "his" stories have consisted entirely of transcribed statements by anonymous government officials.

According to Jill Abramson, the paper's Managing Editor, Gordon was purchased for $27.95 at a Radio Shack on West 43rd Street. Describing the situation as "a prank" that had "gotten slightly out of hand," Abramson said the paper had decided to acknowledge Gordon's identity because after the tape recorder's front page story today, "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says" there "was no place left to take the joke."

Keller described how he and Abramson "really had a good laugh" while editing the Iran story, which is based on the following sourcing:

U.S. Says...United States intelligence asserts...reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies...civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided...military officials say...The officials said...The assessment was described in interviews over the past several weeks with American officials...Administration officials said...according to the intelligence...According to American intelligence...Some American intelligence experts believe...they assert...notes a still-classified American intelligence report...a senior administration official said...according to Western officials...Officials said...An American intelligence assessment described to The New York Times said...Other officials believe...American military officers say...American officials say...According to American intelligence agencies...Assessments by American intelligence agencies say...Marine officials say...American intelligence agencies are concerned...Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week.

"You can't deny that's funny," said Keller, adding that the lack of skepticism displayed by Gordon was "literally inhuman." Keller and Abramson asserted that the Iran article is "even more hilarious" than Gordon's 2002 stories on Iraq's purported nuclear program, written with Judith Miller.

According to the paper's management, the Times plans to keep the tape recorder on its staff indefinitely, given that it does not require health insurance and its voice-activation feature "saves a lot of tape." Indeed, the tape recorder formerly known as Michael Gordon has already filed its own story on the matter, consisting entirely of transcribed statements from anonymous government officials.