Tuesday I noted how the New York Times lived up to its not-so-wonderful reputation (in the eyes of conservatives, anyway) as a liberal rag acting as a mouthpiece for the base of the Democratic Party when it buried the biggest story of the day - the fact that Sandy Berger, former national security advisor to President Clinton, had pilfered "highly classified" documents regarding terrorism from the National Archives.
So, how did the New York Times respond to the heavy criticism it received from multiple news outlets - conservative and otherwise? They just continued right along their liberally biased way.
Let's start out with a brief examination of how three other major East Coast newspapers dealt with the "Berger the Burglar" cover story:
- The Washington Post cover story was headlined "Berger Quits as An Advisor To Kerry: Ex-Clinton Aide Facing Inquiry Over Papers." In it we learned not only that Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign, but also that he was reviewing the classified papers at the request of former-President Clinton in preparation for the 9/11 Commission hearing and that the missing documents were critical of the Clinton Administration.
- USA Today titled its piece on the cover "Berger Ends Advisory Role in Kerry Campaign: Political Fight Over Ex-Clinton Aide's Use of National Security Papers Intensifies." In this article, the reader is informed that Berger was at the archives at the request of the former Clinton Adminstration.
- The Washington Times cover included this headline: "Berger Quits Position in Kerry Camp: Fears Removal of Papers May Cause Political Harm." Here, too, the reader is informed that Berger was looking at this classified information on behalf of Clinton.
What did the New York Times bother to report? Well, let's first look at their cover page headline - "A Kerry Adviser Leaves the Race Over Documents: Fury From Republicans: Ex-Security Official Says Removal of Papers Was an Honest Mistake." Note that there's no mention in this headline of either the perpetrator's identity - Sandy Berger, a well-known name in Washington - or the fact that he was a Clinton advisor. Instead, the Times threw into the headline a mention that he was a "Kerry Advisor" and that Republicans were upset.
So, what do you find when you read the article? That the Times completely ignored the fact that Berger was at the Archives at the request of President Clinton and that the missing documents were ones critical of the Clinton White House's handling of terror threats. Instead, the Times focused on the political fight that has arisen (an important story, certainly), the suspicious timing of the document-pilfering revelation, and how the Republicans are using it for their advantage.
Come on, Times. We all know you have a Leftist bias - don't make it so obvious.
