NY Times Admits It Sends Stories to the US Government for Approval Before Publication
The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.
This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said: The American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing reporting that top officials don’t want made public.
On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. According to the article, “the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,” as part of a larger “digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.”
In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter, calling the article “a virtual act of Treason.”
The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being printed.
“Accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” the Times communications team said. “We described the article to the government before publication.”
“As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns,” the Times added.
Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks
against Russia is attributed to “current and former [US] government
officials.” The scoop in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a
leak or the dogged investigation of an intrepid reporter.
‘Real’ journalists get approval from ‘national security’ officials
The neoliberal self-declared “Resistance” jumped on Trump’s reckless accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition, which boasts, “We help run #TheResistance,” responded by calling Trump “Putin’s puppet”). The rest of the corporatemedia went wild.
But what was entirely overlooked was the most revealing thing in the
New York Times’ statement: The newspaper of record was essentially
admitting that it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government.
In fact, some prominent American pundits have gone so far as to insist
that this symbiotic relationship is precisely what makes someone a
In May, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen — a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — declared that WikiLeaks publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange is “not a journalist”; rather, he is a “spy” who “deserves prison.” (Thiessen also once called Assange “the devil.”)
What was the Post columnist’s rationale for revoking Assange’s journalistic credentials?
Unlike “reputable news organizations, Assange did not give the US
government an opportunity to review the classified information WikiLeaks
was planning to release so they could raise national security
objections,” Thiessen wrote. “So responsible journalists have nothing to
In other words, this former US government speechwriter
turned corporate media pundit insists that collaborating with the
government, and censoring your reporting to protect so-called “national
security,” is definitionally what makes you a journalist.
This is the express ideology of the American commentariat