If there was any question which side the NY Times was on,

this takes care of it.

I'll let others better with words than I get to specifics. To me it simply boils down to they will do anything to get a story, including standing by while American troops are being attacked; and then will use that story to puff themselves up and say laudatory things about the enemy.

'Course, apparently the NYT doesn't really think they ARE the enemy.

Over at Protein Wisdom, "Writes Times assistant managing editor for photography Michele McNally of a photo taken by NYT photographer Joao Silva showing an al-Sadr army sniper in the act of firing on US troops, “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

Whereas what we’ve witnessed here is the product of (admittedly) dangerous opportunism in the service of plaudits and cocktail party invites."


At Powerline, "t would have required courage to hang out with the Mahdi Army, if there were any likelihood that a member of the Iraqi "insurgency" would regard a representative of the New York Times as an enemy.

Finally, I found a post I remembered at Winds of Change about 'journalists' and where their loyalties lie. There was a show(saw it at the time) on the subject of ethics, and the journalists were given the scenario they're travelling with a bunch of enemy troops(enemy to the U.S. and allies, that is). They see them about to attack U.S. troops, what would they do? Would they warn the troops?
"Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction." Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace said a moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

As they say, read the whole damn thing. This is just another case of a bunch of 'journalists' telling us that being members of U.S. society doesn't mean a damn thing to them, getting their 'story' means more. No matter who dies.