"The New York Times" Still Peddling Long-Debunked Bill Clinton Haircut Myth

By MARC McDONALD

In 1993, the mainstream media peddled the myth that Los Angeles International Airport shut its runways for nearly an hour and inconvenienced many ordinary passengers whose flights were delayed so President Bill Clinton could get a haircut. The "story" was Page One news in "The New York Times," "The Los Angeles Times," "The Washington Post," "The Boston Globe," and elsewhere.

There was only one problem: the story was complete bullshit.

But that's OK. The media does sometimes screw up. Nobody's perfect.

There's only one problem, though. Here we are, nearly a quarter of a century later and the media is still peddling the "haircut" myth.

Are we talking about Fox "News"? Uh, no, actually, we're talking about "The New York Times," a newspaper that is allegedly "Liberal."

On Wednesday, the "Times" once again regurgitated the long-debunked myth about Clinton's haircut, in an article about French President Francois Hollande getting expensive haircuts on the taxpayers' dime.

As the "Times" put it: "In 1993, two of Los Angeles International Airport’s runways were shut for nearly an hour so that President Bill Clinton’s Beverly Hills hairstylist could come aboard Air Force One to give him a haircut." (Note: by the time you read this, it's possible that the "Times" will have run a correction---but as of 10 p.m. Central Time, July 13, the "Times" is still peddling the haircut myth).

When I read this story yesterday, I vaguely recalled reading somewhere that this story had been long ago debunked. Then I remembered: I'd encountered this fact years ago, not in a "New York Times" correction, but in a 2005 Al Franken interview on Air America.

Rather than run a correction in 1993, "The New York Times" has continued to peddle the Clinton haircut myth over and over for more than 20 years. As media watchdog site, Media Matters put it in 2007, the story was long ago exposed as a crock:

According to Federal Aviation Administration records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the May 18 haircut caused no significant delays of regularly scheduled passenger flights - no circling planes, no traffic jams on the runways.

Media Matters has debunked "The New York Times" claim over and over----and yet, the "Times" has repeatedly regurgitated the haircut "story."

It's a myth that just won't die, much like the "Vince Foster was murdered" story and Al Gore supposedly claiming to have "invented" the Internet.

Comedian Bill Maher has a segment on his show that refers to right-wing "Zombie Lies" that are regurgitated over and over and never die.

You know what else never dies? Right-wing (and corporate media) lies about Democrats.

Over the years, I'd bet there's probably been more coverage of "stories" like the Clinton haircut and the Vince Foster "murder" and Obama's birth certificate than there has been of real scandals like Valerie Plame (remember her? The vast majority of Americans don't). That was a real scandal. But the same media that snoozed through the Plame case never misses a chance to trot out the Clinton "haircut" myth.

You know, it's one thing if the OxyMoron Limbaugh peddles crap like this. It's quite another thing if the "Times" does it. After all, a lot of people take the "Times" seriously. (Actually, I don't---and I haven't since "Times" reporter Judith Miller wrote stories supporting the pack of lies that Bush used to peddle his Iraq invasion). Of course, that was a much more serious failing by the "Times." Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children died.

But still, I find it astonishing that, after 23 years, the "Times" has yet to stop printing lies about Bill Clinton's 1993 haircut. Who needs Limbaugh when you've got "The New York Times" peddling the same outrageous lies?

New York Times Continues To Peddle Myth That Bush Won Florida In 2000

By MARC MCDONALD

In reviewing the upcoming HBO film, Recount, (which takes a look at the 2000 election fiasco), The New York Times continues to peddle the fairy tale that George W. Bush won the state of Florida in 2000.

In reviewing Recount, the Times makes this claim:

"In 2001 painstaking postmortems of the Florida count, one by The New York Times and another by a consortium of newspapers, concluded that Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied."

But it's important to note exactly what the 2001 consortium report said. As the Times' own November 2001 article on the report stated, in Florida, "...a statewide recount---could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his (Gore's) way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent."

As Thom Hartmann pointed out in a 2004 article, the Times downplayed this shocking revelation (that Gore actually won the 2000 election) in its 2001 article on the story. Hartmann notes that the Times buried this fact in the 15th paragraph of the story.

In its review of Recount, the Times' does go on to include some confusing language that points out that Gore "probably" could have had the edge in the 2000 election. But the main impact of the article is that Bush won Florida and that this was supposedly confirmed by "painstaking postmortems of the Florida count."

It appears that the nation's self-appointed "newspaper of record" seems to be determined to continue muddy the waters on the historical record on this issue.

"Recount" will be shown on HBO at 9 p.m. Eastern Time on Sunday.

Hiring Kristol Marks A New Low for The New York Times

By MARC MCDONALD

The blogosphere is currently abuzz about the hiring of right-wing pundit William Kristol by The New York Times.

The progressive blogs are outraged that the Times has "lurched to the right." Meanwhile, the right-wing blogs are gleeful.

My own reaction (a feeling I suspect is shared by many progressives) is: Who cares?

Many of us gave up on The New York Times as a credible, trustworthy news source years ago. Many of us gave up on the paper even before the Times gave its blessing to the invasion of Iraq, after "journalist" Judith Miller pretended to investigate Bush's case for war. The Times' role in joining the rest of the MSM in cheerleading for the war was one of the most embarrassing episodes in U.S. journalism history.

Most wingnuts imagine that we progressives sit around all day sipping our latte and reading The New York Times. But this stereotype is outdated by at least 30 years. It's a stereotype at least as outdated as that of the GOP as being the "fiscally responsible" party.

The fact is, not only is the Times not as "liberal" as the wingnuts believe, but the Gray Lady's reputation has been coasting on its past glories now for decades.

Like a lot of progressives, I've been an enthusiastic newspaper reader over the years. At one time, I would have found it inconceivable to start my day without reading the Times along with my local newspaper.

But those pre-Internet days are long gone. The Times is no longer the beacon of top-notch journalism that it once was. In fact, American journalism in general has seen a steep decline in quality since the days of the Watergate era produced the hard-hitting investigative journalism that drew many of us into the field in the first place.

The reasons for the decline of U.S. journalism are many. But one reason I rarely see discussed is the increasingly shoddy way that newspapers have treated their employees in recent decades. As a former journalist, I saw first-hand just how crappy this treatment was. Journalists today have to contend with low wages, long hours and a crushing work-load.

When you have journalists making so little money that they spend half their time fretting about how to basic bills, you tend to create an environment that doesn't produce great journalism. Many journalists today are overworked, demoralized, bitter and burned out (and if the younger ones aren't, they will be, soon enough). Overall, the working conditions in America's newsrooms don't lend themselves to sort of great investigation journalism that our era is crying out for.

The New York Times arrogantly still regards itself as the nation's "newspaper of record."

But for many of us progressives, it lost that title years ago.

Indeed, if I were going to a desert island today and had to choose one newspaper, it definitely wouldn't be the Times. I'd probably select Britain's Guardian newspaper, or even The Financial Times.

Indeed, no less a commentator than Noam Chomsky has proclaimed The Financial Times as the best newspaper in the English-speaking world today.

Although it's hardly a liberal newspaper, The Financial Times offers many of the things that once appealed to us about The New York Times decades ago: intelligent, in-depth articles, extensive world-wide coverage, and a newspaper that puts substance over style.

Between The Guardian, The Financial Times and the progressive blogs, I have plenty of great reading material these days. Frankly, outside of columnists Paul Krugman and Frank Rich, I couldn't care less about The New York Times these days (and I suspect I'm not alone among progressives).