Bizarrely enough, the terror plot in New York City to blow up airport terminals and fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport didn't make the front page -- or even the national news section -- of Sunday's New York Times. Instead, it received a front-page "tease" and topped the Times' Metro section of regional news. By contrast, the Washington Post put the story on the front page, and the Los Angeles Times made it Sunday's lead item.
The story by Cara Buckley and William Rashbaum went to some length to downplay the seriousness of the threat:
"Mark J. Mershon, the assistant director in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation field office in New York, said all four men had 'fundamentalist Islamic beliefs of a violent nature,' although they appeared to be acting on their own and had no known connection to Al Qaeda.
"Law enforcement officials said that Kennedy, which handles roughly 45 million passengers a year and 1,000 flights a day, was never in imminent danger because the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives."
Later, the Times described suspect Russell Defreitas, a former cargo handler at the airport:
"One law enforcement official played down Mr. Defreitas's ability to carry out an attack, calling him 'a sad sack' and 'not a Grade A terrorist.' Comparing the case with the plot in which a group of men were arrested last month on charges of planning to attack soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey, the official said the New Jersey plotters 'were a bit further along.'"
Of course, the Times did its best to downplay the Fort Dix terrorists as well.
For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Main section
June 4, 2007 - 15:42 ET by conantDo you suppose that if the fuel pipeline ran under the Times' offices that it would have been a more serious story?
Just depends who the Presiden
June 4, 2007 - 15:52 ET by bigtimerJust depends who the President at the time and if their is a 'D' or 'R' behind their name....
The NYT's...the enemy within.
kerosene fires
June 4, 2007 - 23:32 ET by austinhookOver-rated threats, once properly ridiculed, are more likely to make people complacent about terrorism, than good careful reporting ever will. If we come to think terrorists are now so stupid as to think burning up an oil tank or two, given the way they have safety dike around them along with other precautions, that that will rival a 9-11, then we may as well figure the terrorism problem on the wane.
9-11 brought the kerosene into the middle of a lot of people - plus it dispersed it thoroughly -- it wasn't jet fuel just lying there.
Also, kerosene pipelines dont burn like a giant fuse, and if you can bomb one, you might get them to turn off the flow, while the local fire is dealt with, but you could do a lot more damage with less planning if you could manage to blow up a single gasoline tanker at a critical place in a neighborhood. I hope conservatives are smart enought to know this and assess the media circus accordingly.
Milk River
I'm almost surprised it did
June 4, 2007 - 15:48 ET by lnthompI'm almost surprised it didn't go into the "style" (or equivalent) section!
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Why would they need to put it
June 4, 2007 - 15:55 ET by nnptcgradWhy would they need to put it on the front page? It's not like they suceeded, right?
/sarc
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
News? What news? Now, the
June 4, 2007 - 16:07 ET by kathleenirishNews? What news? Now, the 600th reference to Abu Ghraib, now THAT's news, you neocon fascists!!!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
"One law enforcement off
June 4, 2007 - 16:22 ET by CapitalismRules"One law enforcement official played down Mr. Defreitas's ability to carry out an attack, calling him 'a sad sack' and 'not a Grade A terrorist.'
This was probably the same law enforcement official who referred to Mohammed Atta as "misunderstood." So now we need "Grade-A terrorists" to be able to make news. So who exactly gets to "grade the terrorists?" Would someone classify me as a "Grade-D terrorist" since my only real chaos-causing explosion was a firecracker on the playground in the third grade? Was Timothy McVeigh a "Grade-A" terrorist before Oklahoma City?
Ah, the ubiquitous "One
June 4, 2007 - 16:31 ET by QueenMumAh, the ubiquitous "One law enforcement official" - no names, please.
Of course, this is one of those cases where the NYT is being careful not to put a story on the front page until all the facts are in - as is their policy. ;) Terrorists are only really terrorists when they actually carry out their plans. Otherwise we don't need to worry about them. (sarcasm off)
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Yeah, I mean I hope people
June 4, 2007 - 16:39 ET by CapitalismRulesYeah, I mean I hope people do realize that a "law-enforcement official" could be some fish and wildlife service person who had nothing better to do that day. Just because you are a (ooooohhh) "law enforcment official" that makes you an expert on terrorism.
It's even worse than that
June 4, 2007 - 16:44 ET by RJIt's even worse than that. When writing a story, reporters go down their call lists until they find a "source" who agrees with the point of view they want to present. I know, because I've been on the receiving end of those calls.
and these are the people who
June 4, 2007 - 16:53 ET by CapitalismRulesand these are the people who are supposed to be the self-appointed guardians of truth......sad on so many levels.
Is a victim less dead if kill
June 4, 2007 - 18:37 ET by BuffNBoneIs a victim less dead if killed by a "Grade-D" terrorist than a "Grade-A" one?
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Apparently so. The problem
June 4, 2007 - 22:39 ET by CapitalismRulesApparently so. The problem is that no one can ever tell what "grade" a terrorist is until after the fact, so why the NYT would even make a stupid quote like that is well beyond me.
If the plot was carried out t
June 4, 2007 - 16:32 ET by charlietexasIf the plot was carried out the Left Wing media would probably blame Hollwood and say it was a movie stunt gone wrong. They'd blame Bruce Willis.
NYT
June 4, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Emma GrumpAh, that bastion of courage and integrity, the NYT! If this terror plot would have succeeded, they would be the first to call for an investigation as to how our homeland security did not thwart it with good intelligence gathering. As it is now, the plot was uncovered, the perps have been arrested, and a major calamity has been averted. But now the NYT will ask, "Were their rights violated?", and "Were illegal wiretaps used against them?", and "Isn't this just another instance of racism?" Diane Sawyer will devote another segment on "Islamophobia in America". Ann Curry will ponder, "Why do they want to hurt us?". You can bet THESE stories will make front-page news!
The MSM is not interested in
June 4, 2007 - 16:44 ET by djvangThe MSM is not interested in successes in fighting terrorism. It's that simple.
NYT
June 4, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Emma GrumpThe enemy within is the most dangerous one we face.....
Goebbels would be proud of ea
June 4, 2007 - 18:56 ET by Del DolemonteGoebbels would be proud of each and every one of them.
I live in Northern New Je
June 4, 2007 - 16:48 ET by NortonPeteI live in Northern New Jersey where the NYTimes is constantly trying to give away a free 26 week subscription. They leave papers at my driveway that I constantly kick into the street.
No Shame Times.
They are a joke of a paper. They should put Alien baby stories on the front page.
NYT
June 4, 2007 - 16:51 ET by Emma GrumpNorton - I get those offers from the NYT about once a month. Goes from the mailbox to my shredder in about 6 nanoseconds.
Norton & Emma: Why don't
June 4, 2007 - 17:01 ET by QueenMumNorton & Emma: Why don't you save them up and then drop them off in front of the NYT building - topped off with a pile of dog poop? Or better yet, let the dogs use the paper first and then drop the papers off in front of the building. I guess that would be considered littering. Better put them in the lobby with a note to the editor. You could always get the ACLU to defend your actions as an example of free speech.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
My technique. Use the post
June 4, 2007 - 18:35 ET by BuffNBoneMy technique. Use the post paid business reply envelopes, either sent back empty or better yet to include some equally lame/offensive offer that takes it over 1 oz. Good idea to not include anything with your name/address on it.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
I may have to try that with a
June 4, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Del DolemonteI may have to try that with an ACLU mailing I got the other day...think I'll throw a Sears Roebuck catalog in the envelope too.
NY Post is reporting a "nuclear terrorist" is the missing man
June 4, 2007 - 16:57 ET by RJNothing to worry about, folks!
"Last Thursday, NewsMax.com featured an in-depth story on a little-known name in the terrorist underworld who nevertheless has been called the most wanted man in America because of his efforts to explode nuclear devices.
Now Monday's New York Post is reporting in a Page-One cover story that this same man is the suspected "invisible hand” behind the plot to bomb a fuel pipeline feeding New York’s JFK airport.
This terrorist is Adnan el-Shukrijumah, the so-called "Fixer" behind the 9/11 attacks."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/4/101321.shtml?s=ic
Yoohoo! Leon! Come defend you
June 4, 2007 - 17:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberYoohoo! Leon! Come defend your Bible, comrade! Hurry! Their stock is dropping as we speaking!
They are selling stock? In th
June 4, 2007 - 17:31 ET by bassndudeThey are selling stock? In the NYT's? Your kidding, right? They also selling ocean beach front property in Arizona? How about the Brooklin bridge, it up for sale to?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
In 1991 their stock was worth
June 4, 2007 - 18:53 ET by Del DolemonteIn 1991 their stock was worth 5 to 7 bucks a share. Then it took off, then took a massive nosedive in 1998 (Clinton impeachment?), went up to near 50 and then the BDS really kicked in when the war started in 2003. They've been downhill ever since.
The final insult will be when their stock value equals that of the other paragon of journalistic excellence, SALON.
I wonder if a grade A terrori
June 4, 2007 - 17:27 ET by bassndudeI wonder if a grade A terrorist plot would make the NYT's main section? Ahhh...who am I kidding. The NYT's is rooting for the terrorists. Silly me.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It only would have been appro
June 4, 2007 - 19:43 ET by danboIt only would have been appropriate for the front page. If they had been white guys from the south. Driving pick ups, and wearing white robes. And pointy white hoods.
These idiots have no idea someone wants to kill them. Total denial.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
There's something very seriou
June 4, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Andrew H.There's something very seriously wrong at the Times and it doesn't apear it will be fixed soon.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
A few years back, I e-mailed
June 4, 2007 - 20:31 ET by Del DolemonteA few years back, I e-mailed NYT "Editor" Bill Keller and made a few comments, a couple of suggestions, and asked a few questions. He actually replied to me, which was very professional and courteous. He responded to all of my comments and suggestions, and also answered all of my questions-except one.
The question he refused to answer was this-I am doing this from memory, so the exact text is not correct, but you will get the gist of the idea...my words in quotes as best as I remember them:
"I was given one of those 'coffee table' books for Christmas this year, called 'The New York Times Page One'. It shows reproductions of NY Times front pages of "major events" from 1920 until 1995.
In reading these Page Ones, I noticed that the NY Times had no problem calling the bad guys from the Middle East "terrorists" for many years. There were plenty of Page Ones of the Munich Olympics massacre, the Rome Airport bloodbath, various hijackings, etc. Yet suddenly, after Bill Clinton became President, the word "terrorists" disappeared from the front page. Why did that happen?"
As I said, this was the only part of my e-mail that Keller refused to answer. Wonder why?
You're lying. Such a book
June 4, 2007 - 20:36 ET by lnthompYou're lying. Such a book can't possibly exist -- all terrorism began because George W. Bush became President. Before January 2001, everyone lived happy joyful lives, playing like children in fields of flowers without a care!
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain