Is the New York Times un-American?

[Virginian87]

In light of recent classified information that the Times has revealed to the public, several conservative commentators have called it a traitorous newspaper to the American public.

What do you think?  Discuss.

[bullmoose88]

In light of recent classified information that the Times has revealed to the public, several conservative commentators have called it a traitorous newspaper to the American public.

What do you think?  Discuss.

Maybe unwise...maybe.

But not unamerican.

[J. J.]

I'd like to know exactly what they published.  That the government was trying to monitor and disrupt al Qaeda financial transaction was not secret.  The details were to an extent.  What was published?

[adam]

"unamerican" is a highly overused phrase. They are just stupid, not "unamerican".

[Jake]

How about, not working in America's interests.

Whether they should be or not is debatable, but they certainly shouldn't be in the habit of revealing classified documents, which is a crime as bad as what some alledge Rove/Libby did to Plame.

[dazzleman]

They're anti-American in that they are deliberately working against the interest of the US.  If there is a terrorist attack in the US, they will share some of the blame because they have aided those who want to attack us.

I'm not sure what "un-American" means.

[Michael Z]

I find it quite dangerous when one side of the political spectrum regards the other as working against the national interest solely on account of being part of the opposing ideology.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I find it quite dangerous when one side of the political spectrum regards the other as working against the national interest solely on account of being part of the opposing ideology.

Welcom to politics in america.

[opebo]

They're anti-American in that they are deliberately working against the interest of the US.  If there is a terrorist attack in the US, they will share some of the blame because they have aided those who want to attack us.

The Bush administration is doing far more damage to the interests of most americans than the NYTimes could ever do, dazzleman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sort of term used by fascist right wing parties to condemn those with whom they disagree.
[/quote]

[Joe Republic]

No, because the NYT is based in New York City, which is in the United States of America.  Therefore, I fail to see how it could be "un-American".  If it was based in somewhere in Asia or Africa for instance, then I guess it would be.

[Jake]

I find it quite dangerous when one side of the political spectrum regards the other as working against the national interest solely on account of being part of the opposing ideology.

Wrong. I hold my opinion of the Times because of its long history of revealing classified government secrets. Their ideology doesn't affect me, but their reporting can.

[Smash255]

I find it quite dangerous when one side of the political spectrum regards the other as working against the national interest solely on account of being part of the opposing ideology.

Wrong. I hold my opinion of the Times because of its long history of revealing classified government secrets. Their ideology doesn't affect me, but their reporting can.

You mean the NY Times has a history of running stories that expose possible illegal Governmental actions...

[Jake]

That's neither here nor there.

The Times is guilty of a crime by revealing such programs, whether they're illegal or legal. Personally, I'd rather the government be looking at out of place financial transactions in the hope of breaking up a terrorist cell than not looking. The Times would rather sell papers.

[dazzleman]

I find it quite dangerous when one side of the political spectrum regards the other as working against the national interest solely on account of being part of the opposing ideology.

I said what I said because of their actions, not their ideology.  There's nothing dangerous about the truth.

[Alcon]

There's nothing dangerous about the truth.

Not meaning to make a political statement of any kind here, but that sentence is quite unintentionally ironic, considering the topic at hand.

[DanielX]

Probably. One or two big leaks of illegal stuff (think Watergate-sized) is fine, but the Times is determined to get everything it can out. Its leak stuff that's either trivial or a danger to American troops and operatives. That's a good definition of 'un-American'.

[Virginian87]

Probably. One or two big leaks of illegal stuff (think Watergate-sized) is fine, but the Times is determined to get everything it can out. Its leak stuff that's either trivial or a danger to American troops and operatives. That's a good definition of 'un-American'.

I fail to see how exposing possible illegal government actions that could be detrimental to the American public (and our troops) is anti-American. I am not a fan of the NYT, but the truth is the truth.

^^^^^^^^^Very well said.