Patterico's Pontifications

4/26/2006

L.A. Times: Mary McCarthy Not an Ideologue

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:53 am



This is outrageous. The L.A. Times continues to hide from its readers what media critic Howard Kurtz has called “absolutely relevant information” about Mary McCarthy: her web of connections to prominent Democrats, including sizeable monetary contributions. This, despite the fact that the paper considered analogous information, regarding prominent Swift Vet John O’Neill’s contributions to Republicans, to be worth placing prominently in a story. What’s worse, today’s story positively seeks to portray her as a pure creature of conscience (my emphasis):

Former colleagues described her as cautious and respected. “I thought she was a competent, quiet, good intelligence officer,” said Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who worked with McCarthy. “She was certainly someone you had respect for and saw not as an ideologue or someone who would end up putting herself in this position.”

That quote is not accompanied by even a whisper of McCarthy’s ties to Democrats.

These people are just unbelievable.

UPDATE: Letter writers say that she must have followed her conscience. Maybe. Or maybe politics was mixed in there, too — but you’d never know it from reading this newspaper.

31 Responses to “L.A. Times: Mary McCarthy Not an Ideologue”

  1. The LAT’s letter section is always a source of rage or amusement, depending on your level of forgiveness.

    I’m wondering if they even get letters that are tough and intelligent and in opposition to the day’s agenda. I used to think that they selectively picked through letters, combing over for the most complimentary. Or for those written by flyover imposters with a rifle. It could be that they just don’t receive letters the likes of which you see on these blogs. God only knows.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  2. Who is Richard Kerr, and what are his political affiliations. Or did I miss that?

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  3. spate of activity at Treacher’s. First it was that email from Puce. Now the beginnings of a novel that was squelched by The Man:

    http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001414.html

    How is that on topic? “[A]bsolutely relevant information.”

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  4. Richard Kerr at Sourcewatch:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Kerr

    VERY interesting.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  5. It seem that Kerr’s investigation into and testimony as regards the quality of information and analysis on Iraq’s weapons programs prior to the war is subject to some strikingly different interpretations:

    External Links

    Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay, Internal review backs CIA on Iraq, but notes lack of details (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/6222067.htm), Knight-Ridder, July 2, 2003: “Former CIA deputy director Richard Kerr, who is leading the study, said he found that the spy agency was “surprisingly consistent” in reporting during the year before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Baghdad was trying to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. … But Kerr, in a telephone interview with Knight Ridder, said the status and locations of those weapons programs was ‘harder to conclude.'”.

    David Corn, More Evidence Bush Misled Nation (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=800), The Nation, July 7, 2003: “The day before Independence Day, Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director who is leading a review of the CIA’s prewar intelligence on Iraq’s unconventional weapons, held a series of interviews with journalists and revealed that his unfinished inquiry had so far found that the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had been somewhat ambiguous, that analysts at the CIA and other intelligence services had received pressure from the Bush administration, and that the CIA had not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. … In other words, Bush lied.”

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  6. Didn’t the Swift Boat dude proclaim himself a Dem while he was attempting to influence the 2004 election in Bush’s favor? Didn’t that make his political contributions to the GOP relevant?

    McCarthy’s contributions may be relevant for another reason, but not based on that analogy.

    Dano (826191)

  7. Dano–

    What analogy? The guy had personal reasons for hating Kerry. That doesn’t mean that he hated Democrats. Do you suppose that there are Republicans who dislike Bush?

    Moreover, the last time I checked, the information that the Swifties doled out wasn’t classified, except insofar as Kerry refused despite promising otherwise, to release the complete file of his military records. I’m sure that the secret prisons are seared, SEARED into her memory.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  8. Democrats follow their consiences. GOP types indulge their bigotries. T’was always so.

    Don S (ad6c55)

  9. Remember AbScam?

    Now think DemScam, and consider well the boundless opportunities knocking on the GOP’s door, before they slip away silently because Republicans lack the courage to acknowledge the obvious.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  10. Let’s not confuse the idea of not being an ideologue with not being partisan. Perhaps just this once, the Times Dog Trainer is making a necessary distinction. Consider the possibility that Ms. McCarthy lacks the intellectual rigor to have actually formed an ideology, so she is simply a partisan hack who does whatever she can to help Democrats.

    That of course still does not justify them hiding the clues of Ms. McCarthy’s partisanship from us.

    JVW (fb5e8a)

  11. Mary McCarthy is one unique individual. As a non-ideologue she/husband gave $10,000 to help Kerry get elected. But she didn’t care whether Kerry or Bush got elected, being a non-ideologue. Can you find anyone else that gave that kind of money to the “Kerry effort” who didn’t care who got elected? Can you find anyone that gave that kind of money to the Bush campaign, who didn’t care who got elected?

    Lew Clark (1667ce)

  12. Darn it, JVW, #1O: You wrote my comment. Oh, well, they say great minds think alike. Of course she is not necessarily an idealogue. She could have just been kissing the hand that she thought would feed her best. But its use in the context the LAT used it is more than disingenuous — it is dishonest. It’s like someone being guilty of drunken driving and his friends saying he’s not an alcoholic. Totally irrelevant and misleading and implying that only alcoholics drive drunk or that only idealogues reveal national security secrets.

    nk (77d95e)

  13. Single, not unatractive woman assigned to the white house, promoted above those senior to her. I wonder if she kept her blue dress somewhere.

    Walter E. Wallis (7ea451)

  14. The newspaper sounds horrible, definately.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  15. About ten years ago, the LA Times wrote a big series of articles on why taxes are to low (yes, you read that right- too low). A “middle income” family with combined annual earnings of about 85 thousand dollars had stated that their tax bite was around forty percent, which sounded about right (my wife and I were at around the same income level at the time).

    The reporters that wrote the piece then challenged the couple to produce paystubs to verify their claim and said the couple was only at twenty percent deducted. They then went on to claim “many” other taxpayers at around the same income were inexplicably under the same mistaken belief (due to the 12 years of Reagan-Bush brainwashing, no doubt)that their total tax bite (yes the LAT said TOTAL tax bite, NOT federal) was roughly twice what it actually was.

    I went into our office and pulled out a paystub, then I pulled my wife’s. It WAS at around forty percent- even with a writeoff for 2 kids and a home.

    Why the LAT sees fit to publish crap like this (doesn’t anyone even bother to edit these clowns?) is beyond me. I laud you for your efforts to make this rotten major city daily accountable, but I fear that it’s hopeless. I don’t read ’em anymore just because they’ve been this bad for so LONG.

    trentk269 (3d3bfe)

  16. The [dishonest agenda-driven] editors are the problem, Trent.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  17. OT for this discussion, but compare today’s P1 headlines of the Dog Trainer and the by no means pro-Bush NY Times:

    Dog Trainer: Bush’s Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Oil Bucket

    NY Times: Bush Takes Steps To Ease Increase In Energy Prices

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  18. LAT isn’t the only one with this view. This is another interesting piece on MSNBC where a media member comes out in her defense – in such an insane way I don’t have words for it:

    http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/04/26/olbermann-mccarthys/

    Yes, the LAT sucks too, but watching the above, I’m just at a loss for words.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  19. Keith Olbermann is in the Top 5 of most annoying cable faces.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  20. Secret’s out now boys. We’re a Gulag nation now. Thanks again Bush. ‘No use denying it or shooting the messenger:

    “After 9/11, within the framework of the fight against terrorism, the violation of human and fundamental rights was not isolated or an excessive measure confined to a short period of time, but rather a widespread regular practice in which the majority of European countries were involved,” said Italian lawmaker Giovanni Claudio Fava, who drafted the report. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/26/eu.ciaflights.ap/index.html

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  21. Staying within the subject, Psyberian #22, nobody’s talking about shooting Dana Priest. We’re talking about a highly-placed government official who violated the law and her motives for doing so. I thought you didn’t like that kind of thing. Look, we can disagree about the President’s and the Congressional majority’s job performance but they were elected by us and we can unelect them. When you have top-ranking CIA officials following their own agendas instead of obeying the democratically-elected administration who “we, the people” made their boss you are truly looking at a potential police state.

    (As to the credibility of Signore Fava, … well …, just exactly how much did he like America before 9/11? Do you know?)

    nk (41da82)

  22. Quando ha parlato Giovanni Claudio Fava, non hai niente di piu di dire sopra il caso.

    Dan Collins (61fe73)

  23. When GCF has spoken, there’s nothing more to say about the subject?

    I prefer, “_____ loquitor est.” We need to say “America loquitor est” a little more often and back it up.

    nk (f58916)

  24. Wow. Just wow, Psyberian. “A Gulag nation”, Now that’s frightening. Why don’t you expand a bit on this topic by naming for us all the people you know who have been hauled off to government concentration camps along with their entire families for disagreeing with the government to be forced to live under conditions of constant severe weather on near-starvation diets and frequently beaten, tortured and murdered?

    And be sure to protect your own anonymity, because we wouldn’t want that to happen to you too. And then why don’t you enlighten us about how Atrios, Kos, Kennedy, Kerry and the rest of the left-wing nuthouse manage to avoid this sad fate while slandering and vilifying the government at every opportunity?

    Do you have any grasp at all of what real totalitarian governments do to their people? Any idea at all?

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  25. Doc–

    Psyberian just can’t wait till Michael Moore’s “Gulag Nation” comes to a theater near him. Because then the secret that will live in a totalitarian state will be OUT, man. Dude, how far up your butt can you stuff your head?

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  26. Dan, please write “your” translation of your comment 22. And don’t be so tough on Psyberian. This would be one very boring thread if we all agreed with each other.

    NK(NotPsyberian’sSockpuppet)

    nk (8214ee)

  27. Doc:

    Psyberian. “A Gulag nation”, Now that’s frightening. Why don’t you expand a bit on this topic by naming for us all the people you know who have been hauled off to government concentration camps along with their entire families for disagreeing with the government to be forced to live under conditions of constant severe weather on near-starvation diets and frequently beaten, tortured and murdered?

    Psyberian:

    [Crickets chirping]

    Oh, no! They must have carted off Psyberian to that double-secret gulag, too!

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  28. nk–

    You got it right, you know, but I should have written “c’e” instead of “hai”: When GCF has spoken, there’s nothing more to say on the subject.

    I’ll take your recommendation regarding himself under consideration. I think Patterico chid me about ad-pseudonem attacks already. I just wonder how contortionists manage to do what they do.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  29. Hey Dan, you’re going to make all these republicans upset. After all, the GOPers argue, our national language is English Damnit! ‘Can’t have a bunch of foreigners running around here taking away our national sovereignty and cultural heritage.

    X, they haven’t dragged me off to a Gulag yet. But not too many years ago, the right was all up at arms about our government’s “jack-booted thugs.” There was no trust there whatsoever. Now, according to GOP conventional wisdom, torture is just fine and dandy. That’s one huge flip-flop.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  30. […] P.S. The L.A. Times still isn’t reporting anything of the partisan ties of either woman. There are no new stories about Mary McCarthy since their last deceptive bilge, which implied that she is nonpartisan (by repeating quotes asserting that she is not an “ideologue”), while failing to report the evidence that she is indeed very much a Democrat partisan. You still pretty much have to be in tune with the blogosphere to know about McCarthy’s extensive Democrat partisan ties. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Dana Priest on the Framers’ Approval of Her Actions (421107)

  31. […] And yes: the L.A. Times still hasn’t printed one word about McCarthy’s partisanship. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Dana Priest: This Person Was Too Partisan! Mary McCarthy? No . . . Porter Goss! (421107)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2775 secs.