Did the NYT spike an ACORN story to benefit Obama?

posted at 11:36 am on March 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

ACORN says no.  The Gray Lady won’t talk about it.  But The Bulletin says, Res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself.  They accuse the New York Times of deliberately spiking information that tied ACORN corruption to the campaign of Barack Obama, and doing so for political purposes — and point to Congressional testimony for proof:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office. … “Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

The connections between ACORN and the Obama campaign would have violated federal election law.  McCain-Feingold specifically prohibits coordination between campaigns and outside groups during an election.  In Obama’s case, the coordination would have been a little strange, anyway, as Obama was raising tons of cash and organizing well on his own.  ACORN certainly helped, but explicitly tying his campaign to an organization under investigation for fraud in several states could have done more damage than it was worth.

Those violations would have only cost the Obama campaign some cash, which it has still not stopped raising even more than two months after the inauguration.  The real story here is the New York Times’ alleged editorial bias in support of Obama.  By editorial bias, I do not mean the editorials that appear on the opinion pages, but the deliberate decision to report only news that would be favorable to Obama, and to bury news that would hurt their chosen presidential candidate. It’s the kind of bias that critics frequently accuse news organizations of having, but rarely have proof as cut-and-dried as this appears to be.

Is that what happened here?  The Times may claim that they didn’t have enough corroboration to run the story.  That didn’t stop them from running a despicable hit piece on John McCain alleging a sexual affair between the Senator and a lobbyist, one which they eventually had to retract after getting sued by Vicki Iseman.  They sent reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, but somehow neglected to cover her exoneration on ethics charges, as The Bulletin notes.

Unlike with the Iseman non-story, in which the Times used two disgruntled and unnamed former aides, The Bulletin has a public witness testifying under oath about the Paper of Record’s political machinations.  The Times has given a non-response response.  I’d call this a clear loss for the Times, and further proof of its descent into political hackery — this time covering up corruption in high political circles for its own policy preferences.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What did you expect? Honesty? Integrity?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH.

clnurnberg on March 31, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Did the NYT spike many ACORN a story to benefit Obama?

Upstater85 on March 31, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The Acorn don’t fall far from the dying paper.

blatantblue on March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

The next question is, did the McCain campaign know about this and if not, why didn’t they. And if they did, why didn’t they use this information.

ignorantapathy on March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Political hackery from the Times? I just can’t wrap my head around that.

myrenovations on March 31, 2009 at 11:41 AM

When the gray lady finally is beyond O-like bailouts, O will simply turn it into the global Acorn HQ. They’ll ditch the “corporate planes/cars/etc” for the community buses…

Upstater85 on March 31, 2009 at 11:41 AM

“I’d call this a clear loss for the Times, and further proof of its descent into political hackery”

No, I’d call this “a clear loss for America”. Despicable.

marklmail on March 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Curious how my “moderate” friend who says there is no liberal bias, just a “money bias,” would frame this.

amkun on March 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Isn’t this where our resident liberal trolls come in and proclaim how this is all wrong, and our media are biased towards conservatives? That suppressing links from Obama to ACORN is really a gift to McCain and the vast reichwing conspiracy?

Come on, DTMH, Drywall, etc: Spin this one, you liberal punks. Tell me how the NYT is so fair and balanced. You say they are, so prove it here.

Vanceone on March 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM

And the NYT will not see this as a loss, it was a clear win no matter how they got there….sound familiar? “I won!” That trumps everything.

clnurnberg on March 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM

One more chunk of evidence to a thesis many of us have between Barack Obama and ACORN. Though, unless you follow politics closely, I’m not exactly sure how the average Joe receives and understands this whole business with ACORN.

Weebork on March 31, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Come on, DTMH, Drywall, etc: Spin this one, you liberal punks. Tell me how the NYT is so fair and balanced. You say they are, so prove it here.

Vanceone on March 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Well, when O shuts down the dissenting voices, I suppose the NYT will be the closest thing to fair and balances…

Upstater85 on March 31, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The next question is, did the McCain campaign know about this and if not, why didn’t they. And if they did, why didn’t they use this information.

ignorantapathy on March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

The rest of the media would have just piled on him as a fabricator of lies against “The One”. McCain knew the media had him beat and decided not to bring about further attacks against himself.

Don’t say I blame him

clnurnberg on March 31, 2009 at 11:44 AM

McCain-Feingold specifically prohibits coordination between campaigns and outside groups during an election.

Of course during the presidential campaign Senator McCain would never have allowed this to be used against his worthy appoinent. He was too busy doing nothing and bashing his running mate.

Tommy_G on March 31, 2009 at 11:44 AM

To discuss seriously whether or not this was a coverup is to deny the obvious and render the questioner an IDIOT!

winston on March 31, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Steve Schmidt called it last September:

“But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.”

Robert_Paulson on March 31, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Good thing we have a free and independent press to safeguard the Citizens of the United States against tyranny……..

………… Whew! For a moment there, I was getting worried!

Seven Percent Solution on March 31, 2009 at 11:45 AM

The next question is, did the McCain campaign know about this and if not, why didn’t they. And if they did, why didn’t they use this information.

ignorantapathy on March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Punching Bag McCain exhorted us to stand up in fight while he rolled over and played dead so that (1) he’d still get invited to lunch by his Senate colleagues and (2) he’d still get invited on Meet the Press.

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2009 at 11:45 AM

In Obama’s case, the coordination would have been a little strange, anyway, as Obama was raising tons of cash and organizing well on his own. ACORN certainly helped, but explicitly tying his campaign to an organization under investigation for fraud in several states could have done more damage than it was worth.

A campaign that was willing to shut of credit card verification software and accept thousands of contributions from fictitious people (who may not even have been US citizens) may decide that there was minimal risk in sharing with Acorn. The press had already proven that the campaign was exempt from scrutiny.

obladioblada on March 31, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker.

right. how reliable is this source? and what are the chances that the NYT editors would just tell the reporter that they’re not willing to publish a “game changer”?

sesquipedalian on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

In Obama’s case, the coordination would have been a little strange, anyway, as Obama was raising tons of cash and organizing well on his own.

And Nixon would have won even without breaking into Watergate

tommylotto on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

So the NY Times’ template is “Democrat Good, Republican bad.”

This explains the NY Times accusing McCain of having “an improper relationship” with that young blond lobbyist, their hit piece against Cindy McCain (What did she do to deserve that?) and knowing about but refusing to report something negative about our savior President Obama.

Surprise! Not.

perroviejo on March 31, 2009 at 11:48 AM

And Nixon would have won even without breaking into Watergate

tommylotto on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Good point.

Upstater85 on March 31, 2009 at 11:49 AM

right. how reliable is this source? and what are the chances that the NYT editors would just tell the reporter that they’re not willing to publish a “game changer”?

sesquipedalian on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

It’s not like the New York Times has earned the benefit of the doubt given their recent behavior. This is the same newspaper that posted several front page articles on their Sunday edition about Palin’s wardrobe.

Doughboy on March 31, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Pulitzers were lying around everywhere in the 2008 election and no “journalists” could write the truth.

We’ll hear about Obama being a non-citizen after his sixth term I suppose.

ex-Democrat on March 31, 2009 at 11:50 AM

I’m sure it’s true. They have to protect Obama’s HUGE ego.

deidre on March 31, 2009 at 11:51 AM

The Bulletin has a public witness testifying under oath about what she heard from a disgruntled employee about what the employee had heard from the NYT reporter about what the reporter had heard from her editors about the Paper of Record’s political machinations.

sesquipedalian on March 31, 2009 at 11:52 AM

ACORN certainly helped, but explicitly tying his campaign to an organization under investigation for fraud in several states could have done more damage than it was worth.

This reflects the arrogance of Obama’s campaign. Just as he whined about race without having the media throw it back in his face, Obama knew this kind of conduct would never get reported by the media. And if reported, it would be spun as, say, some faux outrage or some racist finger-pointing by McCain’s campaign.

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2009 at 11:52 AM

The fact that the NYT won’t comment means 2 things, they are guilty as heck and they haven’t talked to the lawyers yet as to how to spin this.

Vince on March 31, 2009 at 11:52 AM

right. how reliable is this source?

Well, unnamed sources were enough to run an “improper relationship” piece on McCain. One would think that an identified individual testifying before Congress constitutes news.

The real concern is that the allegation about the NYT is hearsay. Perhaps someone will follow up with Moncrief or Strom, but I’m not holding my breath.

obladioblada on March 31, 2009 at 11:53 AM

The NYT-OPbama Regime

Too big to fail?

normsrevenge on March 31, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I seriously doubt that only the Times is guilty of things like this. How often do we play “name that party”?

Mord on March 31, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I just might require my students to read Atlas Shrugged in the fall.

College Prof on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM

We need to get back to the early 19th century model for newspapers where it was clear what party that the paper was an organ for. Objectivity is a myth.

WashJeff on March 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM

the ommittee

This little typo was actually talking about a congressional committee, but I think it pretty accurately describes the decision makers of the NYT.

backwoods conservative on March 31, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I just might require my students to read Atlas Shrugged in the fall.

College Prof on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM

They can just watch these news from New York and California to see it live.

WashJeff on March 31, 2009 at 11:59 AM

College Prof on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I wish I could, but I do have them read Amity Shlaes take on the Great Depression. And Hayek.

Another thing, there is no way this isn’t true. Remember, the LA Times refused to make public the recording of Ogabe and Lt. Worf at the dinner “honoring” Rashid Khalidi.

PimFortuynsGhost on March 31, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Punching Bag McCain exhorted us to stand up in fight while he rolled over and played dead so that (1) he’d still get invited to lunch by his Senate colleagues and (2) he’d still get invited on Meet the Press.

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I believed that speech. I was moved by that speech.

And then he betrayed all of us. I knew he would do it, too. That’s the worst part, the willing blindness. (The problem with Obama supporters, as it turns out)

amkun on March 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I just might require my students to read Atlas Shrugged in the fall.

College Prof on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 A

I need to go to school where you teach.

blatantblue on March 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM

College Prof on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM

It’ll be on chapter Chapter 4 by then. (nationalizing the mining/oil industries)

lorien1973 on March 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM

WashJeff on March 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The British model seems to work. You basically know the London Times is the only real neutral source. You can always tell a moonbat by their copy of al-Guarniad or The Independent.

PimFortuynsGhost on March 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM

WashJeff on March 31, 2009 at 11:59 AM

That’s hilarious.

lorien1973 on March 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Sadly, until the NYT itself runs a headline like “WE ARE GUILTY AND BAD” this will be written off as a lot of GOP sour grapes.

clnurnberg on March 31, 2009 at 12:03 PM

ACORN says no. The Gray Lady won’t talk about it.

This is absolute confirmation.

drjohn on March 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Sadly, the Bulletin is a small town paper while the Times is the paper of record for the entire Northeast. It’s like a moth challenging the flame…

I hope the moth wins.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Newsweek (?) spiked the Lewinksy deal until Drudge broke it.

Remember?

lorien1973 on March 31, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I don’t doubt it for a second, but it is hearsay.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her…

forest on March 31, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Death To Media Hacks!

kirkill on March 31, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Why is there a question mark in the headline?

PaddyJ on March 31, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Wowow! ACORN has ties to Obama!? Shocker!

kirkill on March 31, 2009 at 12:13 PM

“All the news that fits, we print.”

Akzed on March 31, 2009 at 12:20 PM

As I said on another thread, as long as the MSM is in the pocket of the DNC, there is no hope.

MarkTheGreat on March 31, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Great. Another story regarding something that I can do nothing about.

I am so ready to tune out.

Then again, that’s exactly what they want, isn’t it?

misslizzi on March 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM

“Bias”

Please stop using this word. The word is “corrupt”.

It’s not a tendency or an inclination. It’s intentionally misleading and propagandizing.

faraway on March 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM

“All the News thats fit (we think) to print”.

kayo on March 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM

We all know/knew about Obambi/ACORN. The fact that no one in the media steps is the issue. As to the “the old grey hag” now relegated to the toilet paper aisle, this is just a prime example of how what goes around, comes around. Acting in traitorous, seditious ways eventually catches up with you. How many lives have they put in jeopardy over the last few years? How is it that they think they are above the law? How is it that they believe that THEY, not We the People, should determine elections? Obama is a LIAR and is brazen about it. They lie for him, and are brazen about it. They shirk their Constitutional mandate to watchdog government as opposed to aid and abet criminal behavior. I’ll be so happy when they all have to apply for jobs at Obama Wind Farms turning prop cranks. Grey Lady down? I hope so, for good. Last nail in the socialist coffin.

HomeoftheBrave on March 31, 2009 at 12:36 PM

When this country goes belly-up we can blame the MSM for not doing it’s job.

They have complicity in Obama’s raping of our rights and privileges.

fogw on March 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The connections between ACORN and the Obama campaign would have violated federal election law.

Obama: “What is this ‘law’ thing of which you write?

There has to be at least ONE Democrat who cares about these things… Just one?… Anybody?… I’ll settle for a RINO who cares.

mankai on March 31, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Acting in traitorous, seditious ways eventually catches up with you.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Maybe the “historians” will eventually catch the NYT but no one else gives a rat’s ass.
If the Times doesn’t do a mea culpa it isn’t real for most of the country, so it’s not real.

The MSM still rules the roost despite all the “alternative media”

clnurnberg on March 31, 2009 at 12:41 PM

I think it is apparent why Chi Times and NYT and LAT, and others are going out of business…they can’t report NEWS.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM

The NYT was defined as hackery over the McCain story run in the election.

Whatever smart articles now pale.

It’s over.

AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM

right. how reliable is this source?
Well, unnamed sources were enough to run an “improper relationship” piece on McCain. One would think that an identified individual testifying before Congress constitutes news.

The real concern is that the allegation about the NYT is hearsay. Perhaps someone will follow up with Moncrief or Strom, but I’m not holding my breath.

obladioblada on March 31, 2009 at 11:53 AM

NYT “Public Editor” Clark Howell had an intersting piece on Sunday about his paper’s use of un-named sources. He said they used them all the time, especially in stories coming out of D.C.

The only way the Times would run this story is if they wanted O’bama to fail. But since they officially endorsed him, that’s a technical impossibility.

Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I think it is apparent why Chi Times and NYT and LAT, and others are going out of business…they can’twon’t report NEWS.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM

FIFY.

A prime example of the NY Fishwrap ignoring a story to benefit one of their political whores: according to the Fed, the 1990s economic recovery actually began in March of 1991. They didn’t get around to reporting it until 9 years later.

If they had been honest and reported it at the time it happened, Bill Clinton would never have won election (18 months after the recovery began) based on his false allegation that his opponent couldn’t fix the economy.

The economy had been fixed. But the Times refused to report it, solely to get their boy elected.

Josef Goebbels would be proud of them.

Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2009 at 12:53 PM

sesquipedalian, I expect we’ll be finding out more about this in the days and weeks to come. If you are truly looking for information on whether this is true and not just parroting some lefty talking point, you’ll probably see it, likely not in the NYT or on CNN or PMSNBC.

TeeDee on March 31, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I find it troubling that he is still raising campaign $$.. Check out this article, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html?hpid=topnews
and click on this link, “writing on his blog at my.barackobama.com”. This is amazing.

reshas1 on March 31, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Who is suprised?

Theworldisnotenough on March 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Did the NYT spike an ACORN story to benefit Obama?

Of course. The NYSlimes has been on their knees for BO for the past 2 years, and they have no plans to change position. A news source, they are not.

I say AGAIN, I wish Rush, Hannity, Levin and Beck would form a conservative newspaper. I would sell and put the other rags to shame.

ErinF on March 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM

right2bright

Chi Times, NYT, LAT will NOT go belly-up. Bailouts are on the way.
They should and would go bye-bye were this still a capatalist nation.
Memo: failure is now subsidized

mountainmanbob on March 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM

So, why do you think Obama would share his maxed-out donor list with ACORN?

I’m sure ACORN wouldn’t contact those folks to get contributions which would be used to support pro-Obama GOTV operations. Thereby giving those maxed-out donors a new way to help Obama financially.

hawksruleva on March 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I say AGAIN, I wish Rush, Hannity, Levin and Beck would form a conservative newspaper. I would sell and put the other rags to shame.

ErinF on March 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I’d be happy if some of the conservative Brit papers would open offices here and sell American editions.

hawksruleva on March 31, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Flashing siren headline on Drudge:

NANCY PELOSI CALLS FOR A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION ON THE TIES BETWEEN ACORN AND THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN!

April Fools!

ornery_independent on March 31, 2009 at 1:06 PM

ErinF on March 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Antitrust.

sethstorm on March 31, 2009 at 1:11 PM

THE NYT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FAIL!

Millions of people will then be forced to house-break their puppies with GOOD paper – a HUGE WASTE!

wildweasel on March 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Speaking of spiking stories, this is unrelated to this thread but was on another one. John at Power Line checks in on the Ahsley Biden cocaine allegation:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023210.php

excerpt

I’m not very interested in Ashley Biden’s cocaine use (assuming the woman in the video is in fact Ms. Biden). But then, I wasn’t very interested in the Bush twins’ underage drinking or the drug-related arrest of Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, either. Yet both were major news stories. Does anyone seriously believe that if there had been a video of Barbara or Jenna Bush snorting cocaine during their father’s administration, the press would have refused to write about it?

It’s nice that our newspapers have decided to respect the privacy of people like a Vice President’s children. It would be even nicer if they extended the same courtesy to members of both parties.

Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I patiently await the day the NY Times closes their doors.

FireBlogger on March 31, 2009 at 1:16 PM

wildweasel on March 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Unlike those who actually read it.

sethstorm on March 31, 2009 at 1:17 PM

FireBlogger on March 31, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Don’t hold your breath. You’ll die sooner than they might.

By the way…
Murdoch’s taking quite a hit to the order of…. 57%?

sethstorm on March 31, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM

If you had a town with only a Murdoch paper, they wouldn’t.

sethstorm on March 31, 2009 at 1:20 PM

In other news, dog bites man.

RegularJoe on March 31, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Here’s an excerpt from Bernard Goldberg’s A Slobbering Love Affair.

It’s from the last chapter and lays out clearly what a threat this media bias is to a society free of government run amok.

flipflop on March 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Let’s ask the NYT how being a pro-Obama paper has been working out for them lately.

RepubChica on March 31, 2009 at 1:45 PM

flipflop on March 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Have all of Bernie’s books. Anyone that turns their back on a lucrative career at CBS for pervasive Liberal bias and takes them on as a one-man-wrecking machine is not only a friend of mine, but a genuine hero.

RepubChica on March 31, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The reasons this was stopped, is because it would have triggered an Fed Election Commision investigation into the Obama Campaign…

And once in the door, they would have found the Online overseas contributions, and bogus credit card reporting… which would have been the game changer…

It was all about not giving the FEC any reason to START an investigation.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Apparently just more news unfit to print.

When the newspapers are bailed out will the transaction qualify for special tax considerations as repayment of campaign debt?

moxie_neanderthal on March 31, 2009 at 2:08 PM

I need to go to school where you teach.

blatantblue on March 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Wish I could tell you where, but since I’m way in the minority (conservatives, natch) and untenured, I run too much of a risk. I can tell you that I will also require my students to read the U.S. Constitution. Surprisingly, most people have no idea what’s in it.

College Prof on March 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM

There would have been no “game changers” in the election. The public was too curious, and too stupid, to not elect the Obamination.

Grafted on March 31, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Not news.

Business as usual.

notagool on March 31, 2009 at 2:15 PM

This (further) proves my point about the right blogosphere… we who write and comment on the news are doing just that… commenting on what THEY decide is news… we’re playing on their ground.

The AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC and ABC might have dwindling numbers of adherents… but they STILL decide what is “news” and all we do is react to the stories as they see (spin) them.

Look at NOLA vs. Fargo. We spent a year reacting to millions of FEMA and 9th District stories which served the Left… in Fargo we react to the weather reports. They decided FEMA was a disaster and that Katrina would define Bush… we reacted.

They made up a story out of nothing because they can.

mankai on March 31, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Which as right at the same time Jodi Kantor was trolling teenagers’ Facebook pages for dirt on Cindy McCain. All the news that fits the narrative, they print.

Jim Treacher on March 31, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Did the NYT spike an ACORN story to benefit Obama?

Is the Pope Catholic? It’s a question of which one, not “did”.

Rocks on March 31, 2009 at 2:28 PM

mankai on March 31, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Good point. We have a black supremacist sitting in the Oval Office who 1) does nothing to help bitter clingers in KY and IN or 2) tells those on the Red River not to panic. And this is not even an issue.

I effing hate him. Hopefully Sarkozy will further humiliate him in London, maybe by insulting Lt. Worf.

PimFortuynsGhost on March 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM

What pisses me off about this more than anything, Not a damn thing will come of it.

KBird on March 31, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Leave the NYT alone. It is not easy making their decisions. There are so many stories and it is hard to pick and choose. You really expect they could just throw away the important articles and photos regarding McCain’s “affair” with a pretty lobbyist? You wouldn’t expect them to eliminate the far-reaching Trig Palin baby-mamma speculation!

Well, in fairness, they could have made room by not publishing all those Edwards affair stories that took up so much news space in their paper for weeks on end;)

Laura in Maryland on March 31, 2009 at 2:50 PM

If you had a town with only a Murdoch paper, they wouldn’t.

sethstorm on March 31, 2009 at 1:20 PM

And a Murdoch paper is less credible than the NYT how, exactly?

ddrintn on March 31, 2009 at 4:50 PM

It’s not called the Duranty Times for nothing.

I’d offer a plea to Heaven that this paper fails quickly and completely, but Zero would then simply buy it and place it under Propaganda Department control and the paper would continue with very few changes. ‘~’

Maquis on March 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Well, in fairness, they could have made room by not publishing all those Edwards affair stories that took up so much news space in their paper for weeks on end.

Laura in Maryland on March 31, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Except that Edwards would have certainly had a better chance given the same economic situation. About everything would have played into his hand.

sethstorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM

The Gray Lady’s dirty underwear is exposed!

Herb on March 31, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2