Euphrates, Mekong, Whatever

Yesterday I intended to mention John Burns's front page story in the NYT, "Shadow of Vietnam Falls Over Iraq River Raids," but never got around to it. I'm spurred on this morning by a Roger Simon post, in which he writes:

On my last day of a great New York vacation I am even able to laugh at the fusty local paper the NYT which is still, incredibly after the election, living in 1972. (If you're going to be nostalgic, at least give us Paris in the Twenties.) This morning they are sporting an orange "Apocalypse Now"-style photo of what could be the Mekong River (wink, wink - we know it's the Euphrates) with the same writer, John F. Burns, flogging the same story he has for two years now, to wit Iraq could be the next Vietnam. (I know - you're shocked). And it's not even a Sunday. This kind of none-news usually fits better with bagel and cream cheese. Burns, once justifiably regarded as one of our better war correspondents, seems to be suffering from "Burns out," feeding his audience what they want to hear.

That's pretty much what I thought yesterday morning when I opened the paper -- not again! And as Simon points out, Burns was once among the better reporters in the Times's stable. Are his editors assigning him stories that reflect the views of his readers? I will say, in Burns's defense, that he doesn't use the word "quagmire" anywhere in the story. That's not a very strong sign of independent thought, but with the Times I'll take what I can get.

Visit Simon's blog (it's always worth reading) and see the comments for this particular post. I can't help but quote one (written in haste, I suspect) in full:

Vietnam, Watergate, McCarthy, and racism. Almost every major news event of the last 40 years that the LA and New York Times covers is based on those 4 touchstones for the "great" broadsheets of this country. They are like a oldies radio station , they can't stop going to those issues like the oldies station plays the the Beatles. For the radio station it makes sense, they are there to relive the past. For a newspaper it is embarrassing.