Bias in the New York Times? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

One of the more striking things about the bias of the New York Times is that it extends well beyond the editorial page, corrupting other areas in the paper, while editors stand by either oblivious or complicit. Can they really be so obtuse that after a torrent of criticism (and a slew of corrections) they still rubber-stamp the Howell Raines worldview without a second glance? The Times is truly a paper in decline and the inability of the staff to recognize the dearth of objectivity has exposed the Times to well-founded ridicule.

Thus, I return once again to the New York Times Book Review, which came in the Sunday paper here in Western Mass. Flipping through, I noted that “The Right Man” by David Frum is reviewed…by a former Clinton speechwriter. It’s a fair review, with some historical perspective, and generally gives a good impression of Frum’s book. But did they have to seek out a Clintonite? Whatever…maybe I’m nitpicking. But then there’s a review of Joe Lieberman’s book “An Amazing Adventure” by a Times’ bureau chief, and a review of “The Woman Who Wouldn’t Talk” by Whitewater-figure Susan McDougal. The McDougal book is reviewed by Beverly Lowry, a professor at George Mason University. Lowry is down on the book, but makes it abundantly clear that she sympathizes with McDougal and views Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr as the real villain – the meanie who locked up poor Susan when she refused to cooperate with his ongoing investigation into Arkansas land schemes, which Lowry minimizes here:

“Unquestionably, the Clintons took part in Whitewater and irrefutably they and the McDougals trampled on some rights and bent some rules along the way. But they were on a roll, life was good. Arkansas sheltered them, and nobody thought life would ever go any other way.”

So the McDougal’s bank, Madison Savings and Loan, went bankrupt and cost American taxpayers $60 million to bail it out – so what! Why are you making such a big deal about Hillary’s conflict of interest in doing legal work for Madison while she had a vested interest and her husband was governor? Calm down with your “trampled on some rights” – you’re getting hysterical. Life was good!

“In the end, of course, Starr came up with pretty much of nothing, beyond a felony conviction for McDougal on charges of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt. But never mind Starr and the millions he cost us….”

If I remember correctly, “pretty much nothing” involved 14 criminal convictions, including the sitting governor of Arkansas Jim Guy Tucker and the Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell. La-dee-da. What’s a little historical disregard among friends?

The review of McDougal’s memoir reveals less about her book than it does about the kind of reviewer preferred by the New York Times. But this wasn’t the worst offense in the vaunted Book Review this week, for we’ve yet to include the de rigueur attack on President Bush. In a section titled “The Close Reader,” Judith Shulevitz puts Shakespeare’s “Henry V” into contemporary context:

“The play’s plotline, for instance, offers more commentary on our current situation than the Pentagon probably intended: A newly crowned king’s claim to the throne is subject to grave constitutional question, since his father usurped it by murdering its previous holder. The king needs to win his people’s trust; he also wants to make them forget his youth as a drunk and a bum. He does exactly that by skillfully and courageously prosecuting war against France, just as his father told him to do: “Be it thy course to busy giddy minds / With foreign quarrels.”

Of course, the Times – ever conscious that 95% of most readers won’t read the article – helps the non-reader with a goofy caricature of George Bush, crown on top, as arrows fly between medieval armies in the background. The kicker quote (the large-font summary) is: “Henry leads his nation into a dangerous, unnecessary, and unjustified war.”

I’m sure, beyond doubt, that Ms. Shulevitz fancies herself as an insightful scholar of the literary arts, drawing clever correlation between Shakespeare and Rumsfield. To her, “Henry V” could never be about redemption, triumph against internal and external foes, and reaching for a higher cause. Instead, it’s all subterfuge and “stratergery” and cynical manipulation. September 11th is a distant memory to her; the usurper king leading an unwilling nation into frivolous battle is her, and the New York Times, reality.