Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It’s true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that’s a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that’s exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an expos

Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It’s true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that’s a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that’s exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an expos

Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It’s true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that’s a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that’s exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an expos

…goes to Fox. FNC has finally picked up Rudi (link slightly work unsafe). The smart folks at CNN can read the handwriting on the wall.

Apparently, the NYT is fine with unwarranted domestic spying, as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House, and we aren’t at war.

Speaking of which, I wonder if there’s any relationship between the Times’ unilateral (though they had accomplices, if not allies) decision a few weeks ago to tell the enemy how we’re tracking their communications, and this:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones

Treacher announces the results of his search for a new word for Mapesonian news stories.

Jay Rosen notes that:

On Dec. 20, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times reported that

Jay Rosen notes that:

On Dec. 20, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times reported that

Jay Rosen notes that:

On Dec. 20, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times reported that

Jim Oberg points out in email that AP has a misleading statement in this story about the European Galileo positioning system:

The $4 billion Galileo project will eventually use about 30 satellites and is expected to more than double GPS coverage, providing satellite navigation for everyone from motorists to sailors to mapmakers. Because Galileo is under civilian control, the ESA also says it can guarantee operation at almost all times, unlike the American system.

Last year, President Bush ordered plans for temporarily disabling GPS satellites during national crises to prevent terrorists from using the navigational technology.

The juxtaposition of these two statements implies that it’s the Bush administration’s actions that have caused Europe to embark on this boondoggle. This is nutty, of course, because the program has been in planning for years, and could hardly be a response to something that the administration did a year ago–it’s almost a non-sequitur. In fact, as Jim points out, it was actually caused by the Clinton administration’s actions in not just planning to, but actually shutting down the system during the Balkans wars. But they can’t bring themselves to mention that, of course.

Jim notes:

Maybe it’s just me, but such omissions and slants in general
AP stories have gotten more and more noticeable.

It’s not just you, Jim.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oh, and speaking of double standards, Michael Scheuer has admitted that Al Qaeda renditions began under the Clinton administration. But of course, it only made us into a police state when a Republican president is in office, and we’re at war.

I’d take a lot of these critics and fair-weather civil libertarians more seriously if I’d heard from them in the nineties, when Janet Reno was attacking churches with tanks, and snatching kids at gunpoint, the administration was collecting FBI files and leaking data against its political enemies, trumping up charges against innocent people so they could replace them with cronies, destroying evidence of wrongdoing in emails, threatening and libeling inconvenient women, etc.

You know, when we weren’t at war? Well, other than at war against the evil right wingers…