Some Surprising Candor From the New York Times

One of the distinguishing features of mid-twentieth century Western culture was the amazing degree of deference shown toward credentialed, professionalized, expert authority. This was the old Progressive ideal at its peak -- in nearly every aspect of life university-trained experts, occupying professionalized positions immunized from democratic pressure, issued pronouncements that the rest of us were expected to follow unquestioningly. And, to a remarkable degree, we did. Such was our faith in the ability of a credentialed elite to provide objective, informed, disinterested judgment. Of course, the concept of an objective and disinterested elite is a chimera, but for a while the great mass of Americans suspended their disbelief on this matter.

One of the consequences of this misguided enthusiasm for expertise was the decision, taken after WWII, to solve a problem of labor surplus by channeling young people into the credentialing institutions. Our school systems were vastly expanded and we began to churn our record numbers -- a veritable locust plague -- of degree-bearing "experts," each of whom was convinced that their academic credentials gave them the right to interfere at will in the lives of others.

Of course the fiction couldn't be long sustained. Already by the late 1960's a new generation of credentialees, products of elite institutions, began to challenge the authority of their elders. And as credentialing became more and more widespread, to the point where today nearly everyone has at least one degree and often several, expert authority became more and more diffuse and open to challenge. Today everywhere credentialed authority is under attack.

One of the last remaining bastions of progressivist authority -- proudly proclaiming its objectivity and expertise and ability to decide what news was "fit to print" -- was the New York Times. The Timesters have the credentials to prove their claims -- a list of Pulitzers and other journalistic awards longer than King Kong's arms. But, as experience has shown, they are anything but objective and disinterested. A series of embarrassing revelations has rapidly destroyed the credibility of the "paper of record." The credentials they proudly display have been shown to be mere self-congratulatory ornaments awarded by a thoroughly corrupt and compromised professional community.

This past December the Times printed a story by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau on government efforts to intercept phone transmissions from terrorists without first obtaining warrants from judicial authorities. The story won a Pulitzer and several other journalistic awards, became a major point of political debate, and caused a great deal of embarrassment for the Bush administration. In the discussion over the story it came to light that the Times had been prepared to issue the story weeks before the 2004 election, but had decided instead to hold it for a year and issue it during a non-election period.

The Times executive editor, Bill Keller, explained that the delay was in response to government requests that sensitive operations not be revealed in wartime. It was a patriotic decision, he claimed. That was a lie.

The real reason, just now revealed, was that the Times senior staff calculated that release of such a story just before an election in which national security was a major issue, would actually help rather than hurt the incumbent administration by showing the lengths to which they would go to fight terror. In other words the decision was made based purely on partisan considerations. So much for journalistic objectivity.

Ed at the Captain's Quarters, reports on this blatant fabulation and the lies that ensued, and makes this judgment:

Keller has destroyed what's left of his paper's credibility. He lied to everyone about the timing of this publication, baldly and publicly. It also damages the credibility of everyone associated with this story. After all, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau certainly knew that the story was ready before the November 2nd election -- and yet they chose to play along with Keller's lies that the decision to spike it was in December 2004 rather than October and November.

The Paper of Record managed to utterly destroy the trust it still had left with readers across the political spectrum with this story.

Read it here. [HT Instapundit]

He's right. A one-time bastion of journalistic integrity has by now lost the last shreds of its tattered credibility. Coming on top of embarrassingly bad reportage of the Katrina crisis, for which the MSM indulged in an orgy of self-congratulation and the obvious manipulation of information coming out of Iraq and Lebanon, the entire journalistic establishment, credentials and all, has come into disrepute.

Progressives assumed that a credentialed elite could provide the voting public with objective, disinterested information upon which they could make informed decisions. Here is a case in which a leading institution of the field deliberately suppressed what its editors obviously considered to be extremely important information for purely partisan purposes. What is being destroyed here is not just the credibility of the New York Times, but of the entire Progressive enterprise.

Shame!