Is past behavior.

It's going to take a cultural tsunami of immense proportions to substantially change things in the media as currently constituted.

The problem is that a tsunami is not easily detected until it is almost upon you.

How else will they be able to justify postponing/cancelling the election?

for the Bush regime, it is obviously the policy of the Times that these items be regularly produced and prominently placed in the paper. There are no accidents here, nor are his editors somehow asleep each time he somehow manages to get by their eagle eyes with yet another propaganda item. No, I think it is fair to suggest that these items are commissioned and placed through the direct intervention of the White House with the highest levels of the Times management.

Gordon is in my estimation a much better writer than Judith Miller, and because he is, he is able to put a more "journalistic" gloss on the propaganda he is commissioned to provide for the readers of the New York Times, and through them, for the nation and the world. But what he's doing is just as obvious as when he was teaming up with Miller back in the Good Old Days when everyone was breathlessly following every twist and turn of the "Curveball" saga.

Even the various Public Editors at the Times seem to be on to the scam. They call out the crap, but it has no discernable effect. One can be safe in assuming it has no effect because Gordon and his editors and the publisher of the Times are following their orders -- or at least their bliss -- in cooperating with, indeed enhancing, the White House propaganda efforts.

By now, the public should be very, very skeptical of any and all "news" articles that appear in the New York Times touting a Threat from Our New Enemies. The Times (and Michael Gordon in particular) should have no credibility in the public eye on these issues at all. They have blown it so badly and so consistently over such a long period of time, that whatever appears on the front page with Michael Gordon's byline should be instantly discounted and discredited -- simply because of the history of this paper and this writer with regard to the topic of Threats.

They... lie. Deliberately, with malice aforethought.

Pravda on the Hudson.

As this B.S. is disseminated, all the "qualifiers' get stripped out. The Dallas Morning news says the NYT and WaPo contributed to their report, but no mention that "there has been debate among experts about the extent to which Iran is responsible for instability in Iraq", Instead, the info was generated from "interrogation reports".

and, ya gotta love this (forgive the transcription)

At a news conference, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there was no hard evidence that Tran was allowing weapons to come into Iraq.

But al-Dabbagh called reporters later to clarify his remarks, which he said were misinterpreted.

"there is an interference and evidence that they have interfered in Iraqi affairs" he said in an interview arranged by a U.S. official. When asked to characterize the proof of Iranian weapons, he said: "It is a concrete evidence."

Reporting biased towards the administration continues; media ownership is concentrated in a few corporations, and until that changes, bias will continue.

That's a less hopeless scenario, to be sure. Still, he will be saddling the new President with two unholy conflicts and that's reason enough to feel the despair I'm feeling.

Then again, maybe it's just because it's Monday...

US-Iran talks have been going on since last year, but Iran has now suspended its participation until the US stops its bombing of Iraqi civilians:

"We believe the talks will not be held given the current situation (in Iraq)," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters during his weekly press briefing Monday.

Hosseini's announcement was the first official confirmation that Iran has decided to suspend talks with the Americans. Iran and the U.S. have held three rounds of ambassador-level talks on security in Iraq since last May.

"What we are witnessing is open and extensive bombing of the Iraqi nation, while the main goal of talks with the American side would have been security and peace in Iraq," said Hosseini. "It is a matter of doubt that the U.S. is pursuing a solution for the crisis, which was caused by them."

Emphasis added.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5wtmcc

So here we have it. Gordon is mindlessly repeating the Timmeh/Cheney pronouncements from yesterday in a breathtaking reversal from the usual order of a NYTimes "disclosure" followed by repeating it on Timmeh's show. All the while, Iran is telling the world that it will no longer take part in diplomatic discussions with a regime actively involved in war crimes (bombing of civilian targets).

The other is that he'll wait till his successor is elected, then start another war for someone else to finish, and for which the successor will have to take the blame. That's what his father did in Somalia, and even at the beginning of that misadventure, people were publicly speculating that it was a cynical effort by Bysh to kneecap Clinton on his way out. Sonny boy may have Oedipal issues with Dad, but when it comes to petty meanness he's a chip off the rotten old block.

and bizarre. If the administration has come to these conclusions, and wishes to make them public, then let an appropriate official hold a press briefing, describe the accusations and the evidence, and make the representations to the Security Council and through diplomatic channels to Iran.

The only reason for making these accusations through anonymous leaks to a reporter is to avoid having to back them up with any evidence. Why would that not occur to the NYT editors?

So, in spite of our protests and demands, the administration is drumming up another disaster. Why do I get the awful feeling in the pit of my stomach that, come October, we're going to find ourselves throwing explosive ordinance at Iran and the decider deciding to suspend the general election?