Editorial page editors at the McClatchy Co.—owned Minneapolis Star—Tribune removed king—sized hunks of syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg's recent column about New York Times, et al. revealing   national secrets and compromising national security, during the war on terror.

That the Star—Tribune runs the Goldberg column periodically on its op—ed page is a bit of a surprise, although other more or less conservative writers appear there, too ——  e.g., Will, Charen and May, amid the parade of Dowds, Ivins and Krugmans.  Perhaps Goldberg's sometime finding ink is a token to break the monotony of mostly leftist palaver?  His nifty column on the New York Times' latest sins runs on July 3 under the title, "Liberals undermine the nation and the war."  You'll find it here but registration is required.

What this newspaper did to Goldberg's column in the editing process is a case study in how editorial people omit cogent information that might clash with their own political views. Another reason, if one were to speculate on why the clever editing, is that liberal gatekeepers seek to protect their fellow liberals, and their megaphone, mainstream media, from bright, coherent conservative criticism.  In any event, what Star—Tribune editorial editors did to Goldberg's column is revealing as heck.  Read on to see how egregious they've become. 

I had read his column first here at the Jewish World Review a few days earlier.  It was differently titled, "Unity on a newspaper's terms," posted on June 28.  When I re—read it on Star—Tribune's op ed page on July 3, under a different title.  Something didn't click.  Something was amiss, missing;  I could not put my finger on what.  So I checked.         
 
Sadly, I discovered  Star—Tribune cut a few of Goldberg's choicest arguments.  When I re—read his  column at JWR I found the missing text, good stuff left——revealingly——on Star—Tribune's cutting room floor.     
 
Why dilute Goldberg's message?  To suit a 100% liberal—to—the—core mind—set?   To excise his stinging criticism of their antiwar, antiBush liberals?  To squelch fair commentary because, well, it didn't square with the the editors' views?  Your guess is as good as mine. 
 
Nevertheless, here is exactly what Strib zapped from Goldberg's original column:

"As befits his role in public discourse, Bill Moyers provided an illuminating caricature of this thinking. After the 9/11 attacks, he wrote, 'This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart of our democracy: No matter our wealth or status or faith, we are all equal before the law, in the voting booth and when death rains down from the sky.'" And because of this, Moyers argued, America must implement the usual laundry list of liberal social policies, including the repeal of NAFTA and the implementation of single—payer health care.

"But Moyers was hardly alone. Sen. Charles Schumer, D—N.Y., proclaimed in the Washington Post that 9/11 justified a 'new New Deal.'  The New York Times joyously proclaimed that 'Big Government Is Back in Style,' and its indefatigable chorus of asininity — Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd et al. — pounded their spoons on their high chairs about the un—Americanness of tax cuts during a war. 'Since 9/11, our government has asked no sacrifice of civilians other than longer waits at airline security,'  Frank Rich whined."

These two MIA paragraphs speak reams.  Found near the top of his original column, Goldberg had factually  noted that "editorialists nodded like a chorus of bobbleheads" at the 9/11 Commission's scolding the government for its "failure of imagination."    

After he charges mainstream media with "relentless efforts" to "paint the United States and George W. Bush is particular as the real problem in the war on terror," Strib editors scrub Goldberg's next line:

"From Abu Ghraib to Hadith to Guantanamo and beyond, the press justified America bashing on the grounds that it isn't their job to be cheerleaders."

After Goldberg writes, "The Times simply thinks it's in the public interest to expose it and, hence, to cripple it [the SWIFT program],"  Strib also wipes out this, his next sentence (why is aVery Good Question):   

"The Times ignored the pleas from a wide variety of public officals, including the chairmen of the 9/11 commission, who apparently see such effors as the sort of 'imaginative' work the government should be  doing."

Bottom line:  Editors spin even their own purchased "outside" columns —— in this case, from Tribune Media Services, an independent outfit.  But why?  To suit their partisan tastes?  To meet a staunchly political agenda?  Public discourse is not well served by this kind of  inside censorship, in any quarter.  

So readers are hoodwinked, in effect, by not being given the full—bodied logic of a columnist, courtesy of  local, provincial, expurgating editors.  Can  this newspaper, or any other in its entirety be believed on ANY level, when its editorial board stoops to such new lows, gagging writers' views even in their own syndicated columns? 

Breathtaking, maybe, but the editing out of "offensive" or "politcially incorrect" material is not shocking.  The public is "on" to it.  Besides, it's not called liberal mainstream media for nothing, is it?

Gary Larson   7 4 06