Satan’s earmuffs, it’s cold! The headline says it all: Why ‘Trust Us’ Is Often Reason Enough Not to Trust the Government. In a stunningly trenchant “news analysis”, Charlie Savage notes that the frenzied resentment that Biden administration spokesfolk like Jen Psaki express towards anyone who doubts their sainted word only makes us doubt them all the more.
In the most sensitive and consequential government operations, the public is beholden to the narrative of officials — which sometimes turns out to be wrong. Yet officials can be defensive about skepticism from the news media, as unfolded twice on Thursday.
Okay, I would upgrade “sometimes” to “99.997% of the goddamn time”, but this is definitely a step up from the Times’ previous habit of rewriting DoD/CIA press releases on behalf of SecDefs Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, not to mention then CIA Chief John Brennan. Oh, and then there was the time the Times sent a column by Maureen Dowd making fun of the Obama administration, and the CIA in particular, out for review, to the CIA! When questioned about the propriety of such behavior, NYT managing editor Dean Baquet “explained” as follows:
I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that’s going on, you’d know it’s much ado about nothing. I can’t go into in detail. But I’m confident after talking to Mark [Mark “the Fink” Mazetti, who sent Dowd’s column to the CIA (without her knowledge)] that it’s much ado about nothing.
The optics aren’t what they look like. I’ve talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know, it’s much ado about nothing.
If you’re a language purist, you might wonder how the “optics” of something can somehow be “not what they look like”—I mean, isn’t that what “optics” are?—but, then, you probably don’t work for the New York Times.
And if that wasn’t enough—and it surely was—NYT executive editor Jill Abramson provided full-on “how dare you question me” obfuscation:
I can’t provide further detail on why the entire column was sent. I can assure you that Mark was not doing the C.I.A. a favor. He is an experienced, terrific reporter. Your suggestion is flat wrong.
So, at what I guess, and certainly hope, was the “old” New York Times, optics didn’t look like themselves and “I can’t” meant “I could, but if I did I’d have to have you killed”. But now, things have changed! Keep up the good work, Charlie!
