The New York Times made a remarkable correction. Professional journalism is dead.
The original article appeared in the print edition on April 3, titled, “A North American Treaty Organization Without America?”
Here’s the pic of the correction.
Sandwiched between their usual errors is the one which draws our attention. NATO, a relic of the Cold War, stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO does not stand for North American Treaty Organization. Turkey has been a member since 1952. The New York Times getting that name wrong while asking whether such an organization can exist without America would mean the entire premise of the article is faulty, and therefore the whole article is bunk and should never have been published.
It was published as a “news analysis,” which makes things worse. How can anyone offer an accurate analysis of something when they fail to understand the most elementary aspects of it?
A North American Treaty Organization would not even include Great Britian or France. C’mon. The New York Times must know NATO involves European countries. And exactly where do they think NATO is headquartered? It ain’t in North America. NATO HQ is in Europe in a place that shares the name of the sprots I had with dinner the other night. Would their HQ relocate if the US leaves? Probably not.
To answer their question, the US should absolutely leave NATO right away. Leave NATO ASAP, could be the rally cry. NATO was an important piece of the winning puzzle in the Cold War. I’m glad we had them on the right side. Since the Berlin Wall fell, NATO has no mission, no vision, no urgency to exist, and can now safely dissolve. The current situation is NATO always functions whether or not there is anywhere or any reason for it to function. That’s a waste. NATO can be replaced as needed by Ad Hoc defense alliances which form for a specific purpose with a specific set of metrics to determine success and end date.
For the US’s perspective, NATO is far more likely to pull us into a war than to prevent one from happening. We don’t need NATO at all for deterrence. Our enemies can see our strength. Our location, with large oceans on our East and West, frozen land to our North and trouble to our South, provides a lot of security. Attacking the US is both difficult and suicidal. Our enemies are then left to try to attack our allies and interests elsewhere. None of that changes if the US leaves NATO, so let’s leave. It’s in the best of our interests to do so.
It is difficult to imagine how such a baffling error could make it into print. Online would’ve been bad enough, but for that article to make its way into the print edition of The New York Times is especially problematic. It means many editors failed at understanding NATO at an elementary level. Far more than a headline, the basic premise of the article needed correction. Professional journalism is dead.