The New York Times Blows It Again

Just when you think the New York Times might be attempting to rebuild its recently-shattered image as a role model for journalism you see an article like this — reflecting biases out of the starting gate, telling assumptions that put it in the category of "advocacy journalism" and leaving you with an overall feeling that you need to take a mental and physical shower arfter reading it.

When 22st Century journalism schools study what led to the mainstream media’s plummeting credibiliity and respect they should read this:

When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I
wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an
Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or
simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in
Iraq? Until he picked up the phone, he was just a ghost on the Internet.

A charitable way of describing the opening paragraph in this story would be: it’s building journalistic sandcastles…to be blown away the further down you read it.

Let’s forget for a moment that in some places of the world — and guess what: that includes Iraq — claiming someone is a tool of America might be a teeney-weeney costly to the person who’s accused. It might cost them something — like their life. Or their families’ lives.

Even during the 60s and 70s an allegation like that — even if it is explained that it’s not the case further down in a written piece — could cost someone their lives or contribute to them spending a long time in a hospital. (But, then, its such a POWERFUL opening paragraph…how can you resist?)

What proof does the writer have, what indicators that this might be the case? Nothing really solid..but perhaps it’s presented this way because it’s cool and professional sounding to make sure you tell everyone how skeptical you are….even without actual proof that it’s deserved. And accusing someone of being a government lackey (even though real ones like Armstrong Williams do indeed exist) is always a nice touch.

The mystery began last month when I went online to see what Iraqis
think about the war and the Jan. 30 national election. I stumbled into
an ideological snake pit. Out of a list of 28 Iraqi blogs in English at
a site called Iraqi Bloggers Central I clicked on Iraq the Model because it promised three blogging brothers in one, Omar, Mohammed and Ali.

It
delivered more than that. The blog, which is quite upbeat about the
American presence in Iraq, had provoked a deluge of intrigue and
vitriol. People posting messages on an American Web site called Martini Republic accused the three bloggers of working for the C.I.A., of being American
puppets, of not being Iraqis and even of not existing at all.

Excuse me if I take a shower.

UPDATE: I just read Jeff Jarvis who has the same reaction and goes into more detail about this irresponsible piece that my editors would have called a "thumb-sucker" (a variation on that last word is indeed appropriate.)