More of the NY Times' double standards

The New York Times has another one of its stories that periodically puts the developing world in its place. This story is about the Chinese regime's undemocratic rules, specifically a rule that cars should be saluted by kids.

I have no objection to the story in itself. There is no doubt a story here. And I am no fan of undemocratic policies anywhere in the world, whether India, China, or the US.

But why does the sharp journalistic eye of the Times fail to see similar coercive pressures in the US? It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to criticize the American military or troops, regardless of whether the person is for or against the war. Criticizing the troops, beyond singling out a "few bad apples" responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture, runs the risk of exposing one to accusations of being 'anti-American' 'unpatriotic', 'treasonous', or worse. I recall Vijay Prashad mentioning in an interview in Social Text that he routinely gets threatening messages on his phone for his political beliefs. This social impossibility of being able to criticize the troops-- even if legally one has freedom of expression to do so--is generally true of corporations, or university settings (for all their genuine commitment to freedom of expression), or the public sphere. A Chomsky can do so but even he gets assaulted by the Right. This phenomenon is, of course, a function of the American Right exploiting the notion that liberals led by Jane Fonda let down, and vilified the American troops in Vietnam.

In this respect of insisting on obeisance to certain symbols of national authority, with the possibility of punitive social (and often, but not always, legal) sanctions for violating such injunction all nations-- the US as much as China-- appear to be alike.

I don't recall seeing a single prominent American liberal or libertarian voice defend the principle of freedom of expression in this context. Not the libertarian economists who valiantly defend the freedoms of corporations against government interference. Not the libertarian political scientists who never fail to remind us why the West beat the rest (a commitment to freedoms being one reason!). Not all the liberals who defended the war as a 'just' intervention.

Another coercive pressure manifests itself as the demand that all minorities-- and some more than others-- should constantly prove their loyalty to a certain conception of the nation. Which is why gas stations owned by South Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans are likely to have many symbols of patriotic sentiment visibly displayed all across their establishments.

Not a squeak from the Times about any of this.

And what about the Times' own rule-following when it came to the official Weapons of Mass Destruction line trotted out by the White House, which the Times lapped up without question?

This is why many academics have a poor opinion of the Times, even if they will not say so openly. As a tactical matter, these academics will not refuse a chance to publish in the Times, given the influence, prestige, and reach of the paper. But from conversations with several academics about the mode in which the Times covers the world, none of them really expect the Times to get the complexity of the situation. They don't expect the Times to be reflexive about its own assumptions either.

And yes, it is possible to get the complexity of a situation in a newspaper article or op-ed. This is not a journalist versus academic mode of writing issue at all.