Shrinkwrapped has a fascinating explanation — metaphorical but nonetheless applicable in this case — for the strange behavior of The New York Times in its recent revelation of national security issues.
To use a layman’s term for what follows, where I (and The New York Post) think that the paper of record is toying with treason, Shrinkwrapped thinks they’re nuts:
|There is a curious reaction that is sometimes seen in patients who have had a stroke (CVA or Cerebral-Vascular Accident in medical parlance) in which they do not recognize the loss of function in the area affected by the stroke. They may have been paralyzed on one side of their body but act as if nothing is wrong or they may have cortical blindness for half their visual field but be completely unaware of their visual defect.|
|In today's New York Times, there is an example of "news reporting neglect syndrome" that is so significant that it suggests a life threatening condition which has thus far not been recognized by the victim.|
|There is no mention in this or later in the story, that much of the "firestorm of criticism" was, in fact, directed at the Times and the leakers who have imperiled our national security and safety for reasons that at best are misguided and at worst are down right treasonous. For a newspaper which touts itself as the "paper of record" and printing "all the news that's fit to print" to leave out much more than half of the story, merely because it doesn't fit their agenda is dangerously misguided. This is a major story about a very significant breach, yet that aspect is ignored or minimized by the Times.|
|It is possible that the Times and its reporters literally do not recognize that they are neglecting the 75% of the world who do not agree with their stance. As such, they would not be omitting the news because they do not agree with it, but because they literally do not see it as news.|
|If a stroke patient who neglects half his visual field is allowed to continue driving, they will almost certainly have a major accident before too long. They may not be suicidal, which requires intent, but instead are in deadly danger because of their own disability, lack of awareness of their disability, and poor judgment. For a so-called news organization to continue publishing when they exhibit such an obvious disability when it comes to recognizing news is likely to prove fatal in the long run.|
Well, I am fortunate: Shrinkwrapped reads the New York Times so I don’t have to. I hope he wears gloves, and a mask and a gown. Otherwise…