John added, " the blog article sets forth the reporters' characterizations of those remarks, (the Times' reporters' summary being patently false, as shown by their juxtaposition with the President's remarks) and then their refutation of the president's factual assertions, as the author of the blog piece so accurately puts it, by "ex cathedra" pronouncement. in short, the times' position triumphs over all, including the facts of the matter.
The New York Times Reports and Distorts a Presidential Address
By Rick Richman The American Thinker"...it has almost ceased altogether to be a newspaper."
-- Renata AdlerOn July 24, around noon, President Bush delivered an important speech at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina. He discussed in considerable detail the links between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the central leadership of Al Qaeda, reflecting the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community.About four hours later, the New York Times posted a news story by Times reporter Brian Knowlton about the speech. It was a good example of straightforward journalism - not something one sees all the time at the Times. Here are the first three paragraphs from Knowlton's report:"President George W. Bush argued forcefully today that an Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq is linked tightly to the central Al Qaeda leadership, and that for American forces to leave Iraq without defeating the terror group would be "dangerous for the world and disastrous for America.""He made the remarks at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina, at a time of fierce debate in Washington over Iraq policy. Last week a major intelligence report concluded that the international Al Qaeda organization of Osama bin Laden had successfully regrouped, probably in rugged northwest Pakistan, and that it is once again as strong as it was before the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."In a half-hour speech clearly aimed at his Democratic critics, Mr. Bush said that those who argued that the affiliated group, called Al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI, was a local group with local objectives, and not a serious threat to Americans at home, were seriously misinformed."Knowlton's report (which continued for an additional 17 paragraphs) was generally a fair summary of the President's principal points and the passion with which he had delivered his speech (a video is here). But Knowlton's article didn't appear the next day in the paper version of the Times. Instead a different article, by different reporters, was published.
The news story in the national edition of the Times was written by Jim Rutenberg and Mark Mazzetti. Here are the first three paragraphs from their report: