Hacker News Reader

Comment by richardjordan | Hacker News Reader

The hypocrisy of the New York Times in printing this is shocking. The newspaper which did so much to whip up hysteria during the years of the Bush administration now trying to raise concerns about the inmates of Guantanamo is shockingly cynical. It's a shameful state of affairs that our political process is so broken we cannot deal with this situation in a civilized fashion, with investigations, trials and an end result. Instead we live in an Orwellian state of perpetual war, one which the New York Times was happy to goad us into back in the days when they actually sold newspapers and profited from a nation's feelings of hurt and lust for vengeance.

View on HN

The hypocrisy of the New York Times in printing this is shocking.

As opposed to thinking it but refusing to print it because it would involve conflicting with something they printed four or eight or twelve years ago?

I would hope that a newspaper could be trusted to reverse the opinions it prints.

The events you've outlined don't require intellectual dishonesty at all. It's possible to have thought war was a prudent course of action in 2003, then to have changed one's mind by 2013.

I think it's pretty well documented by now that the NYT advocated for positions which they knew to be false and passed on information they knew the source of but failed to notify the reader of in ways that deliberately misled readers, during this period. So, while you're right that one can hold one position then the other, I think that doesn't invalidate their mendacity.

Also hypocrisy is still a valid description of advocating a position which created this suffering then pointing out that this suffering is terrible and that someone should do something.

However, I do think (see my comment later in the thread) that it has to be remembered that hypocrisy isn't the worst sin one can commit, and if they can be as effective in moving us to the next phase in all of this as they were in pushing the agenda forward which led to this situation in the first place that's a net good thing.

Not to mention the question of whether a newspaper have "a" mind...

They may not have a mind but they have a voice. And the NYT has or at least had a particularly influential voice.

they have editors, and the editors are there to give it a cohesive voice, which implies a mind.

Eh, false memories. I distinctly remember the day after 9/11. Real people greeted it with maybe a sad shrug. I remember talking to a janitor who predicted war with Iraq. (He knew guys in the military who got phone calls right after.) Shrug. Whatever. It was only the media that kept up the hysteria.

The janitor and the New York Times were on the same page. Shrug. I still don't care that much. Those guys at gitmo at this point could seriously prove embarrassing, either through talking or blowing themselves up. That doesn't effect me, but TPTB are risk-averse.

In this case I think the hypocrisy is positive; I would much rather NYT be hypocritical by speaking out against Guantanamo rather than holding their old position.

Yes this is a great point. One thing that I don't want to fall into the habit of doing, and I got close to in my initial point, in my disgust for their hypocrisy is something I see as a problem in modern politics. Hypocrisy isn't the greatest sin in the world, but we sometimes act like it is and make the consequences of hypocrisy (or changing your mind) so great (electoral defeat) that people will hold onto a bad policy and continue bad or harmful action in favor of not flip flopping or being hypocritical. So you make a good point, and it's better that they at least attempt to remedy some of the harm they have contributed to, than hold onto a morally bankrupt position.

Hypocrisy and changing ones mind aren't the same thing. To me hypocrisy implies playing both sides of an issue at the same time, or disingenuously trying to appear to have changed your mind, when you're pursuing an ulterior motive. Maybe the NYT is doing this, I don't know. But if so, it's more than simply changing their minds.

A) It is not hypocritical to change ones opinions given time and new information. Hypocrisy is doing something you advocate against while you are an advocate against it. Believing otherwise is to argue against the scientific method itself.

B) Is it even a conflicting opinion to think a certain war may be just, but some actions taken as part of that war are unjust? One example of such a situation may be the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Many people argue that the war itself was just, and worth fighting, while the Japanese internment camps were a grave mistake.

Perhaps they thought the Iraq war was righteous thing, while thinking the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay far from just.

C) To be Orwellian is to deny the past. Has the NYT ever claimed they didn't take a stance that they did? Have they denied printing those words that supported the war? If they haven't rewritten history they haven't been Orwellian.

Please don't cry wolf on things like this, because we need to credibly make these arguments when something really is Orwellian.

I wonder if this indicates a change in the NYT's moral leadership, or if Washington is ready to close gitmo and wants to drive public opinion in a way that'll make it more acceptable politically.

I suppose we'll be able to tell by whether the NYT starts asking the hard questions on drones in the next few months.

And by the way, I'm all for hypocrisy when it means moving against the cruelty and injustice of the past.

>>The newspaper which did so much to whip up hysteria during the years of the Bush administration

I lived through those years, I don't recall people running around the streets of American cities in a state of hysteria.

We all lived through those years - or anyone old enough to be commenting on here did - and I disagree. I think the media climate, which is what we're talking about when we are discussing newspapers, was absolutely one of hysteria. The march to war and the support for remedies such as Guantanamo. If the American media landscape and political climate was not one of hysteria when we made such terrible choices then it speaks far worse of us than the alternative.

I remember those times as well. I remember how they convinced so many people that the biggest issue facing the United States was Saddam Hussein ... Even liberals were buying it, or prefacing their statements with "I know he's a bad guy who has to go right away, but..." It was pretty crazy.

Or, how about that they successfully convinced the American voter to elect more Republicans in 2002 because ... Saddam. Makes no sense right? But it worked. It was successful enough to convince the opposition party to also support the war.

Let's not forget that Dick Cheney's office leaked a fake story to the New York Times, then cited that story as a reason for going to war... People forget that now, and just how fucked up it is.

Iraq span multiple presidents:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...

"The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them."

Yep, I remember that. I don't think that action, or even what Bush the elder did, was anywhere near the colossal fuckup and misinformation of the 2000s decade, though.

Sure there was hysteria, right down to color-coded threat level alerts and people duct-taping their windows to protect themselves from chemical and biological attacks.

Even prominent or well-known people were afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal (a valid fear: see Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher).

Maybe because I am British I have a very, very low opinion of the media, newspapers in particular, but...

Welcome to the world of the media and press.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com