https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?

"WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.

U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.

The brazen attack on the natural gas pipelines, which link Russia to Western Europe, fueled public speculation about who was to blame, from Moscow to Kyiv and London to Washington, and it has remained one of the most consequential unsolved mysteries of Russia’s year-old war in Ukraine."

The New York Times published an article with the headline of
"Sabotaged Pipelines and a Mystery: Who Did It? (Was It Russia?)" last September.

It chose to totally ignore Seymour Hersh's long article suggesting the pipeline bombings were deliberately planned action directed by the US.

Well, despite the silence of most US corporate media, the issue are not going away by itself. So, someone has to take the blame to counter the report by Hersh. Viola, a new but otherwise unknown and untraceable "pro-Ukraine" group was named. And again the New York Times is dutifully repeating the new finding.

While the New York Times has considered itself the paper of record. Looking from the outside, one has to ask "What is the record of the paper".

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
>
> "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
> that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
> pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
> act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
> Atlantic for months.
> […]

Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| "Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..."
| (a prisoner in "Life of Brian")

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
> >
> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
> > Atlantic for months.
> > […]
>
> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)

Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute the whole non-
participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it could be a useful trick to distract.
Some Russian diplomats certainly see Western media report that way.

"WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports about the involvement of a
pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to
mislead the probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the Russian Embassy in
the United States, said. "

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
>> >
>> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
>> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
>> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
>> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
>> > Atlantic for months.
>> > […]
>>
>> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)
>
> Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute
> the whole non- participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it
> could be a useful trick to distract. Some Russian diplomats certainly
> see Western media report that way.
>
> "WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports
> about the involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack
> on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to mislead the
> probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the
> Russian Embassy in the United States, said. "

AFAIR The previous " _suspect_ by a known journalist" has been US
federal government itself. IMHO such review may look like as not too
subtle move. [Timing stupid! ] It is hard for me to treat it otherwise
without names of the suspects *in the first paragraph*.

IMHO It is not In PRC interest to forget the previous "suspect"
_completely_ in media coverage _always_ quoting the original source.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Liar, n.: A lawyer with a roving commission.
| (Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary")

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
> >> >
> >> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
> >> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
> >> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
> >> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
> >> > Atlantic for months.
> >> > […]
> >>
> >> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)
> >
> > Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute
> > the whole non- participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it
> > could be a useful trick to distract. Some Russian diplomats certainly
> > see Western media report that way.
> >
> > "WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports
> > about the involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack
> > on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to mislead the
> > probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the
> > Russian Embassy in the United States, said. "

> AFAIR The previous " _suspect_ by a known journalist" has been US
> federal government itself. IMHO such review may look like as not too
> subtle move. [Timing stupid! ] It is hard for me to treat it otherwise
> without names of the suspects *in the first paragraph*.
>
> IMHO It is not In PRC interest to forget the previous "suspect"
> _completely_ in media coverage _always_ quoting the original source.
> --

Don't know what you mean.
If you are talking about US intelligence outing a yet to be unidentifiable
"pro-Ukraine" group, I would say it is a brilliant move.

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
>> >> >
>> >> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
>> >> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
>> >> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
>> >> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
>> >> > Atlantic for months.
>> >> > […]
>> >>
>> >> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)
>> >
>> > Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute
>> > the whole non- participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it
>> > could be a useful trick to distract. Some Russian diplomats certainly
>> > see Western media report that way.
>> >
>> > "WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports
>> > about the involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack
>> > on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to mislead the
>> > probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the
>> > Russian Embassy in the United States, said. "
>
>> AFAIR The previous " _suspect_ by a known journalist" has been US
>> federal government itself. IMHO such review may look like as not too
>> subtle move. [Timing stupid! ] It is hard for me to treat it otherwise
>> without names of the suspects *in the first paragraph*.
>>
>> IMHO It is not In PRC interest to forget the previous "suspect"
>> _completely_ in media coverage _always_ quoting the original source.
>> --
>
> Don't know what you mean.
> If you are talking about US intelligence outing a yet to be unidentifiable
> "pro-Ukraine" group, I would say it is a brilliant move.

I disagree. The move is too "by the book" *in implementation* by my
standards. It may be fixed by next "leaks" but I do not expect it.
So IMHO you may be right only if it is an *opening* move.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans; it's lovely to be
| silly at the right moment. (Horace)

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:37:14 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
> >> >> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
> >> >> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
> >> >> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
> >> >> > Atlantic for months.
> >> >> > […]
> >> >>
> >> >> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)
> >> >
> >> > Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute
> >> > the whole non- participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it
> >> > could be a useful trick to distract. Some Russian diplomats certainly
> >> > see Western media report that way.
> >> >
> >> > "WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports
> >> > about the involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack
> >> > on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to mislead the
> >> > probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the
> >> > Russian Embassy in the United States, said. "
> >
> >> AFAIR The previous " _suspect_ by a known journalist" has been US
> >> federal government itself. IMHO such review may look like as not too
> >> subtle move. [Timing stupid! ] It is hard for me to treat it otherwise
> >> without names of the suspects *in the first paragraph*.
> >>
> >> IMHO It is not In PRC interest to forget the previous "suspect"
> >> _completely_ in media coverage _always_ quoting the original source.
> >> --
> >
> > Don't know what you mean.
> > If you are talking about US intelligence outing a yet to be unidentifiable
> > "pro-Ukraine" group, I would say it is a brilliant move.

> I disagree. The move is too "by the book" *in implementation* by my
> standards. It may be fixed by next "leaks" but I do not expect it.
> So IMHO you may be right only if it is an *opening* move.

No. It is not an opening move. Rather it is a continuation.

As I see it, the plan described in Seymour Hersh's article has a hole. It did
not seem to include a plausible denial feature. It should not be difficult to
plant some Russian detonator or some other hardware as evidence to
implicate Russia.

Think it differently, its absence was a design feature. The bombing episode was
to demonstrate American power. It is not unlike Mafia family A killed a member
of Mafia family R to show its displeasure to all people.

One problem, such killing get a high ranking member of Mafia family G, currently
friendly to family A into trouble
because he is the DA responsible for the case.

What next? The Consigliere of Mafia family A simply outs a low ranking member
and gives him to the DA IF feasible.
Message to mafia family R and C : You better behave else I would do it again.
Message to mafia family U: You better follow my order to the letter or the case
could get you into trouble.
Message to the rest of the world: Mafia family A is still the unipower.

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:37:14 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> >> ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> >> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
>> >> >> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
>> >> >> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
>> >> >> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
>> >> >> > Atlantic for months.
>> >> >> > […]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute
>> >> > the whole non- participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it
>> >> > could be a useful trick to distract. Some Russian diplomats certainly
>> >> > see Western media report that way.
>> >> >
>> >> > "WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports
>> >> > about the involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack
>> >> > on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to mislead the
>> >> > probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the
>> >> > Russian Embassy in the United States, said. "
>> >
>> >> AFAIR The previous " _suspect_ by a known journalist" has been US
>> >> federal government itself. IMHO such review may look like as not too
>> >> subtle move. [Timing stupid! ] It is hard for me to treat it otherwise
>> >> without names of the suspects *in the first paragraph*.
>> >>
>> >> IMHO It is not In PRC interest to forget the previous "suspect"
>> >> _completely_ in media coverage _always_ quoting the original source.
>> >> --
>> >
>> > Don't know what you mean.
>> > If you are talking about US intelligence outing a yet to be unidentifiable
>> > "pro-Ukraine" group, I would say it is a brilliant move.
>
>> I disagree. The move is too "by the book" *in implementation* by my
>> standards. It may be fixed by next "leaks" but I do not expect it.
>> So IMHO you may be right only if it is an *opening* move.
>
> No. It is not an opening move. Rather it is a continuation.
>
> As I see it, the plan described in Seymour Hersh's article has a hole. It did
> not seem to include a plausible denial feature. It should not be difficult to
> plant some Russian detonator or some other hardware as evidence to
> implicate Russia.
>
> Think it differently, its absence was a design feature. The bombing episode was
> to demonstrate American power. It is not unlike Mafia family A killed a member
> of Mafia family R to show its displeasure to all people.
>
> One problem, such killing get a high ranking member of Mafia family G, currently
> friendly to family A into trouble
> because he is the DA responsible for the case.
>
> What next? The Consigliere of Mafia family A simply outs a low ranking member
> and gives him to the DA IF feasible.
> Message to mafia family R and C : You better behave else I would do it again.
> Message to mafia family U: You better follow my order to the letter or the case
> could get you into trouble.
> Message to the rest of the world: Mafia family A is still the unipower.

So: Our opinions/perspectives are quite different.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Men use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and speech only
| to conceal their thoughts. (Voltaire)

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:37:14 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:55:25 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> >> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests
> >> >> >> > that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream
> >> >> >> > pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an
> >> >> >> > act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the
> >> >> >> > Atlantic for months.
> >> >> >> > […]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wonderful spread of suspects (as cover up?) :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, Russia/pro-Russia together with Ukraine/pro-Ukraine constitute
> >> >> > the whole non- participants of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. And yes, it
> >> >> > could be a useful trick to distract. Some Russian diplomats certainly
> >> >> > see Western media report that way.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian diplomats see Western media reports
> >> >> > about the involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in the terrorist attack
> >> >> > on Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines as an attempt to mislead the
> >> >> > probe into the incident, Andrey Ledenev, Minister Counselor of the
> >> >> > Russian Embassy in the United States, said. "
> >> >
> >> >> AFAIR The previous " _suspect_ by a known journalist" has been US
> >> >> federal government itself. IMHO such review may look like as not too
> >> >> subtle move. [Timing stupid! ] It is hard for me to treat it otherwise
> >> >> without names of the suspects *in the first paragraph*.
> >> >>
> >> >> IMHO It is not In PRC interest to forget the previous "suspect"
> >> >> _completely_ in media coverage _always_ quoting the original source..
> >> >> --
> >> >
> >> > Don't know what you mean.
> >> > If you are talking about US intelligence outing a yet to be unidentifiable
> >> > "pro-Ukraine" group, I would say it is a brilliant move.
> >
> >> I disagree. The move is too "by the book" *in implementation* by my
> >> standards. It may be fixed by next "leaks" but I do not expect it.
> >> So IMHO you may be right only if it is an *opening* move.
> >
> > No. It is not an opening move. Rather it is a continuation.
> >
> > As I see it, the plan described in Seymour Hersh's article has a hole. It did
> > not seem to include a plausible denial feature. It should not be difficult to
> > plant some Russian detonator or some other hardware as evidence to
> > implicate Russia.
> >
> > Think it differently, its absence was a design feature. The bombing episode was
> > to demonstrate American power. It is not unlike Mafia family A killed a member
> > of Mafia family R to show its displeasure to all people.
> >
> > One problem, such killing get a high ranking member of Mafia family G, currently
> > friendly to family A into trouble
> > because he is the DA responsible for the case.
> >
> > What next? The Consigliere of Mafia family A simply outs a low ranking member
> > and gives him to the DA IF feasible.
> > Message to mafia family R and C : You better behave else I would do it again.
> > Message to mafia family U: You better follow my order to the letter or the case
> > could get you into trouble.
> > Message to the rest of the world: Mafia family A is still the unipower.
> So: Our opinions/perspectives are quite different.

Not unexpected.
But I would agree with you on the US government APPEARS to be weak or incompetent in clearing it names.
The difference is that you seem to accept "Timing stupid" and "by the book," I think appearance is just appearance.

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:40:17 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
>
> "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.
>
> U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.
>
> The brazen attack on the natural gas pipelines, which link Russia to Western Europe, fueled public speculation about who was to blame, from Moscow to Kyiv and London to Washington, and it has remained one of the most consequential unsolved mysteries of Russia’s year-old war in Ukraine."
>
> The New York Times published an article with the headline of
> "Sabotaged Pipelines and a Mystery: Who Did It? (Was It Russia?)" last September.
>
> It chose to totally ignore Seymour Hersh's long article suggesting the pipeline bombings were deliberately planned action directed by the US.
>
> Well, despite the silence of most US corporate media, the issue are not going away by itself. So, someone has to take the blame to counter the report by Hersh. Viola, a new but otherwise unknown and untraceable "pro-Ukraine" group was named. And again the New York Times is dutifully repeating the new finding.
>
> While the New York Times has considered itself the paper of record. Looking from the outside, one has to ask "What is the record of the paper".

A pair of writer, Howard Friel and Richard Falk did challenge the New York Times record.
They together published a 2004 book entitled "The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misrepresents US Foreign Policy." The authors examined NYTimes record before the US invaded Iraq under false pretense and found the paper wanting.

" On May 26, 2004, the New York Times issued an apology for its coverage of Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction. The Times had failed to provide what most readers expect from the US newspaper of record: journalistic accuracy and integrity about important matters of US foreign policy..

But the Times’ coverage of Iraq was worse than they were willing to concede. In fact, for at least the past fifty years the editorial policy of the Times—from its coverage of the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam to the issue of torture in Abu Ghraib—has failed to incorporate international law into its coverage of US foreign policy. This lapse, as the authors demonstrate, has profound implications for the quality of the Times’ journalism and the function of the press in a country supposedly governed by the rule of law.

In this meticulously researched study, Howard Friel and Richard Falk reveal how the Times has consistently misreported major US foreign policy issues, including the bombing of North Vietnam in response to the Tonkin Gulf and Pleiku incidents in 1964-65, the Reagan administration’s policy toward the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, the 2002 military coup that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s elected president, and the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. " (Back cover, 2007 paperback edition)

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:43:11 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:40:17 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html?
> >
> > "WASHINGTON — New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.
> >
> > U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.
> >
> > The brazen attack on the natural gas pipelines, which link Russia to Western Europe, fueled public speculation about who was to blame, from Moscow to Kyiv and London to Washington, and it has remained one of the most consequential unsolved mysteries of Russia’s year-old war in Ukraine."
> >
> > The New York Times published an article with the headline of
> > "Sabotaged Pipelines and a Mystery: Who Did It? (Was It Russia?)" last September.
> >
> > It chose to totally ignore Seymour Hersh's long article suggesting the pipeline bombings were deliberately planned action directed by the US.
> >
> > Well, despite the silence of most US corporate media, the issue are not going away by itself. So, someone has to take the blame to counter the report by Hersh. Viola, a new but otherwise unknown and untraceable "pro-Ukraine" group was named. And again the New York Times is dutifully repeating the new finding.
> >
> > While the New York Times has considered itself the paper of record. Looking from the outside, one has to ask "What is the record of the paper".
> A pair of writer, Howard Friel and Richard Falk did challenge the New York Times record.
> They together published a 2004 book entitled "The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misrepresents US Foreign Policy." The authors examined NYTimes record before the US invaded Iraq under false pretense and found the paper wanting.
>
> " On May 26, 2004, the New York Times issued an apology for its coverage of Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction. The Times had failed to provide what most readers expect from the US newspaper of record: journalistic accuracy and integrity about important matters of US foreign policy.
>
> But the Times’ coverage of Iraq was worse than they were willing to concede. In fact, for at least the past fifty years the editorial policy of the Times—from its coverage of the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam to the issue of torture in Abu Ghraib—has failed to incorporate international law into its coverage of US foreign policy. This lapse, as the authors demonstrate, has profound implications for the quality of the Times’ journalism and the function of the press in a country supposedly governed by the rule of law.
>
> In this meticulously researched study, Howard Friel and Richard Falk reveal how the Times has consistently misreported major US foreign policy issues, including the bombing of North Vietnam in response to the Tonkin Gulf and Pleiku incidents in 1964-65, the Reagan administration’s policy toward the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, the 2002 military coup that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s elected president, and the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. " (Back cover, 2007 paperback edition)

Prof. Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor at Princeton University, had once made the following comparison between Soviet press and US free press:

"... if one lived in Soviet Union and read the Pravda, it would be easy for him to read between the lines and understood what the reality was. But if you are in the United States reading the New York Times, it would require a very sophisticated person to understand where the manipulation was and where the real news was."

Why the NYTimes which prides itself as the paper of record ends up distorting news over US foreign policy?