New York Times experiment in self-awareness lasts all of two days

posted at 2:01 pm on April 25, 2012 by Morgen Richmond

Last Sunday the New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, publicly chastised his paper for not providing adequate scrutiny of President Obama’s record, admitting that they had perhaps “basked a bit in the warm glow” of Obama’s election. An understatement to be sure, but any acknowledgement of bias from the Times is a rare event, and so this understandably received a lot of coverage by the conservative media. Well fast forward two days later, and observe Times’ editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal pretty much give Brisbane, and conservatives, the (metaphorical) finger. Get a load of this: (emphasis added)

President George W. Bush used his executive power to bypass Congress, almost as a matter of routine. Now President Barack Obama is pulling a similar stunt.

I was appalled, and so was the Times editorial board (and so, in fact was Senator Barack Obama) when a Boston Globe reporter, Charlie Savage, documented Mr. Bush’s use of presidential signing statements and executive orders. But I am not appalled by the way Mr. Obama is relying on those instruments – as detailed in today’s Times by that same enterprising reporter, who now works for us. Context and intent make all the difference.

Now this is the New York Times we know and love! Ah yes, “context and intent”. Predictable explanation: it was wrong for Bush to exert executive power in order to bypass Congress, because he and Dick Cheney were trying to destroy the Republic. But Obama is only attempting to help people with his “we can’t wait” campaign; and in fact, he only reluctantly adopted this approach due to those evil Republicans whose sole objective is to ensure he fails. In this telling, it’s a wonder Obama hasn’t declared martial law.

Yes, Rosenthal is definitely still basking:

Unlike the Bush/Cheney team, Mr. Obama did not take office with the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency. That was not part of his agenda. Moreover, his executive actions often are more modest in their effect than the White House’s public relations team might admit.

Ask the Catholic Church how “modest” Obama’s executive actions have been? Or how about the family of Anwar al-Awlaki? Because whatever you think of the policy, I don’t remember President Bush asserting the “modest” power to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas.

Rosenthal’s column appears in an online section of the Times laughably named “The Loyal Opposition”. Perhaps this title dates back to the Bush administration, because if the editors of the Times support President Obama on this, given their former stance, it’s hard to imagine what they would ever oppose. They’ve got the loyal part down pat, but what they really seem to be opposed to is consistency, and fair reporting.


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

It’s not called the New York Slimes for nothing.

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I was appalled, and so was the Times editorial board (and so, in fact was Senator Barack Obama) when a Boston Globe reporter, Charlie Savage, documented Mr. Bush’s use of presidential signing statements and executive orders. But I am not appalled by the way Mr. Obama is relying on those instruments – as detailed in today’s Times by that same enterprising reporter, who now works for us. Context and intent make all the difference.

“We were against executive power before we were for it.”
/NYT

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Wow, empty room. I can hear the echo.

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Now see here, Hitler wasn’t as bad as Stalin because when Hitler had people massacred he did so with extreme regret.

Bishop on April 25, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Last Sunday the New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, publicly chastised his paper for not providing adequate scrutiny of President Obama’s record, admitting that they had perhaps “basked a bit in the warm glow” of Obama’s Stalin’s election.

Pravda and Isvestia “basked” in the same “warm glow.”

OhEssYouCowboys on April 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Whew! H3LL was getting pretty cold there for a day or two!

rebuzz on April 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM

In this telling, it’s a wonder Obama hasn’t declared martial law.

That’s coming too…

PatriotRider on April 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Number of drones used by Bush to spy on Americans inside the US: 0

Number of drones used by Obama to spy on Americans inside the US: More than zero

Now, who’s the enemy?

BobMbx on April 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Pol Pot? Not as bad as Mao because Pol Pot simply wanted to develop Cambodia into a 1st world nation, he just got a little sidetracked with the Killing Fields.

Bishop on April 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Back to the Paper of Liberal Record again. Whew! That fair and balanced thing was hard. But now we can revert back to toilet paper status.

search4truth on April 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM

In this telling, it’s a wonder Obama hasn’t declared martial law.

That’s coming too…

PatriotRider on April 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM

He’ll be more flexible after November 6th.

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Rosenthal’s column appears in an online section of the Times laughably named “The Loyal Opposition”. Perhaps this title dates back to the Bush administration, because if the editors of the Times support President Obama on this, given their former stance, it’s hard to imagine what they would ever oppose.

It’s not. It’s a relatively new creation, within the last five or six months.

I only know this because it’s a sad part of my job to read Times editorials.

Red Cloud on April 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’m amazed they can hang on like they do. Even stranger they’d want to.

DanMan on April 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM

“Today I have declared martial law and have announced a suspension of elections. It’s for your own good though, and I promise to cede power back to the American people when I have finished doing what is necessary, proper, and just.”

-PBHO

“OMG! Isn’t the president just so awesome? He takes charge…like a wild, sweaty stud!”

-NYT

Bishop on April 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Context and intent make all the difference.

Liberals don’t make mistakes, they are the victim of circumstances kay’

Conservatives make mistakes and Liberals are the only ones brave enough to point those mistakes out to everyone kay’

The liberal mind see how that works LOL!

Dr Evil on April 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The NYT has become a sham of a joke of a travesty of a parody of a farce of a newspaper. The mental disease known as “lunatic-left d-cRAT socialism” has destroyed the last few remaining brain cells of the socialist propagandists at the “All The News That’s Fit to Fake” NYT. However, like certain other body parts, the brain of a lunatic-left socialist is extraordinarily tiny, so there wasn’t very much for this extremist disease to destroy. (NB: the lunatic-left affliction to “recklessly spend other people’s money” is NOT controlled by the brain, but is one of their more disgusting bodily functions. That’s why corrupt, crazy pelosi, who has been brain dead for decades, managed to waste more than $5 TRILLION as the WORST HOUSE SPEAKER IN AMERICAN HISTORY.) The good news for these socialist propagandists is that they are now mentally on a par with their leader “You Lie!” hussein, whose severely drug-damaged brain was barely able to keep up with their only partially impaired one previously.

If Karma works, the editors, owners and journalists/socialist-propagandists of the NYT will all be reincarnated as dung beetles — and they’ll feel right at home!

TeaPartyNation on April 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Yawn.

hawksruleva on April 25, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Puhleeeze

Dem power good
Gop power bad

Idiots

cmsinaz on April 25, 2012 at 2:14 PM

In this telling, it’s a wonder Obama hasn’t declared martial law.

Just a matter of time. For our own good, of course.

Context and intent make all the difference.

talkingpoints on April 25, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Back to the Paper of Liberal Record again. Whew! That fair and balanced thing was hard. But now we can revert back to toilet paper status.

search4truth on April 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Proper use of NYT is birdcage liner.

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I only know this because it’s a sad part of my job to read Times editorials.

Red Cloud on April 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Tell me it’s a union job. Or you work for Reuters/AP.

DanMan on April 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM

We all know nothing substantive will change at the NYT when it comes to the coverage of Obama, but the Rosenthal article is an opinion piece. You really expected their editorial staff to stop politicking for the Won? The real issue with the NYT when it comes to how Obama was/is covered is the journalism side of the paper. Ignoring stories negative to Obama or fabricating affairs for Obama’s opponent is the real travesty in all of this.

NotCoach on April 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM

+1 rebuzz

cmsinaz on April 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM

The Times has become a parody of itself.

rickyricardo on April 25, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Liberals will say and do anything to stay in power.
They believe in nothing, only in doing what ever it takes to get and keep political power.

albill on April 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM

This guy would justify cheating on taxes during the Bush years and being honest about them during Obama.
Absolutely devoid of integrity.

Jabberwock on April 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Here’s a swell idea! Why doesn’t Hot Air create a new category of posts. Let’s call it “Quotes of the Day.” For Obamas and giggles, let’s make sure that most quotes are from the New York Times.

I hope no one beats me to that great idea.

MNHawk on April 25, 2012 at 2:21 PM

But I am not appalled by the way Mr. Obama is relying on those instruments – as detailed in today’s Times by that same enterprising reporter, who now works for us. Context and intent make all the difference.

If Obama went on live TV and said “hail satan” then killed a puppy in front of a toddler the NYT would frame it as “the puppy had it coming, not THAT satan, and that kid was already traumatized by Bush.”

Meric1837 on April 25, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Look here, for the latest power grab over your freedoms.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2012 at 2:22 PM

About a month ago the gov’t said they’d outlaw certain farm equipment to be used, unless trained by gov’t officials/experts…and it’s just one example of what they dream up, daily.

All czars Must go.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I just love it when print media pretends it is still relevant and that journalism is a noble profession above the fray of partisanship and bias. It is this delusion of grandeur that will ultimately kill off the NYT, WaPo, and all the rest of these propagandistic rags.

Happy Nomad on April 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM

If Bush sent drones over Pock-is-stan and bombed terrorists there, would the New York Slimes report that?

Yes they would: GW Bush declares war on a partner in the war on terror.

Obowma HAS sent drones over Pock-is-stan and bombed terrorists there, has the New York Slimes reported that?

Why yes: Obowma means well.

Conclusion?

Conservative intent is evil, yet results in success.

Liberal intent is pure, yet results in pain and misery.

dthorny on April 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Let’s quit calling them the Press…and call them what they are…Prostitutes!

KOOLAID2 on April 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM

NYT employees are, in their own way, petitioning Obama to save their outrageous benefits. Back scratching thingy.

Jabberwock on April 25, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The New York Times has been a joke for 25+ years.

How is today’s media any different from the propaganda machine Joseph Goebbels ran in Nazi Germany?

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Smirk-inducing stuff.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Two days? That’s 46 hours longer than I thought it would take.

natasha333 on April 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM

About a month ago the gov’t said they’d outlaw certain farm equipment to be used, unless trained by gov’t officials/experts…and it’s just one example of what they dream up, daily.

All czars Must go.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Yep. I was going to comment on O’s czars, also, after reading this sentence:

Ask the Catholic Church how “modest” Obama’s executive actions have been? Or how about the family of Anwar al-Awlaki?

As to your point about the kids on family farms, I was not surprised by that post, at all. Liberal government has been working for decades toward more control over the children. I guess they figure the brainwashing they’re doing in public schools is not effective enough.

RedCrow on April 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Let’s quit calling them the Press…and call them what they are…Proesstitutes!

KOOLAID2 on April 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM

affenhauer on April 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM

This “warm glow” is the sign of just how radioactive Obama has become to his fellow Democrats outside gerrymandered CBC districts.

Archivarix on April 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM

But Obama is only attempting to help people with his “we can’t wait” campaign; and in fact, he only reluctantly adopted this approach due to those evil Republicans whose sole objective is to ensure he fails.

And the stupid slow-jamming, Oboorish butt-kissing leftistproglibturd true-believing dumbmasses are lapping this up like little puppies so doggishly innocent they have no idea they’re about to get devoured by a really ugly big bad wolf.

stukinIL4now on April 25, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Unlike the Bush/Cheney team, Mr. Obama did not take office with the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency.

Obamacare, NLRB/Boeing, EPA jihad against private property rights and economic freedom, Labor Dept and farm children, recess appointments when there’s no recess, Catholics and birth control…

“We can’t wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won’t act, I will,” – Barack Obama

When the Times says Obama didn’t have an explicit goal of creating new presidential powers, all they mean is that he was lying.

RadClown on April 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Don’t worry. If Romney wins the Times will go back to its previous position and then can claim consistency.

I forgot all the campaigning that Bush/Cheney did on “expanding presidential powers”. Or the speeches they made in that regard. I assume that this guy’s statement that

Unlike the Bush/Cheney team, Mr. Obama did not take office with the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency.

Since explicit means that somewhere Bush/Cheney actually stated that was their goal – I assume that this idiot can point to that?

or, more likely “explicit” to a liberal means “what I believe their motive to be”.

Can liberals seriously be any more idiotic? Do they even realize how stupid they are?

Monkeytoe on April 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

In this telling, it’s a wonder Obama hasn’t declared martial law.

Hmm I wonder why all those record gun sales are happening? Two phrases that are starting to surface more and more “I WILL NOT COMPLY” and MOLON LABE! You can’t control or subdue free people who will fight standing up, instead of kneeling before a narcissistic dictator.
“Live Free or Die” isn’t just an nice sounding phrase anymore, it is a way of life.

stormridercx4 on April 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Let me see …. I left that somewhere here on my desktop … I knew I would need it again … yep, here it is …

There’s your problem!

You are crediting liberals The New York Times with having a consistent conscience. They don’t.

Moral equivalence is impossible if you have a consistent conscience.

Intellectual dishonesty is impossible if you have a consistent conscience.

Denying rampant corruption is impossible if you have a consistent conscience.

A fanatic level of devotion where anything done in the name of a cause is alright is impossible if you have a consistent conscience.

If you have a consistent conscience, treating a liberal The New York Times as a moral, rational organization individual should keep you up at night – you lend credibility to their malfeasance when you do.

It is just that simple.

PolAgnostic on April 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM

If Obama went on live TV and said “hail satan” then killed a puppy in front of a toddler the NYT would frame it as “the puppy had it coming, not THAT satan, and that kid was already traumatized by Bush.”

Meric1837 on April 25, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Then Jay Carney would come on TV and insist that the American Forces were not in Baghdad he knew at lest three different Satans.

SWalker on April 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

These people are such friggin’ hypocrites, it’s almost hard to believe they’re real. They’re more like cartoon characters.

AZCoyote on April 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM

These people are such friggin’ hypocrites, it’s almost hard to believe they’re real. They’re more like cartoon characters.

AZCoyote on April 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM

What you see at the NYTimes, is the inescapable consequences of accepting and embracing the ideology of “The End Justifies the Means”. Truth is the very first victim of that ideology followed closely by honor and integrity.

Once those are gone you become like the NYTimes, both willing and able to twist and contort into any shape imaginable so long as it get’s you your desired results, or you at least believe it will.

SWalker on April 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Progressives reject hypocrisy and seek to explain it away. I have to believe they know the stupidity of which they speak, and are just not this foolish and stupid.

TheLastBrainLeft on April 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Progressives reject hypocrisy and seek to explain it away. I have to believe they know the stupidity of which they speak, and are just not this foolish and stupid.

TheLastBrainLeft on April 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

No they don’t reject hypocrisy, they simply aren’t a shamed of being hypocrites. Ask one, they will reply, So what. On the list of things progressives should never be, hypocrite isn’t even in their top 10. I know, I have had this discussion with a liberal. It’s been explained to me by a liberal as some kind of innocuous intellectual by product, they are amused a little when they catch each other at….yeah they are that deep when it comes to self reflection LOL! It goes back to their core nature which is different degrees of Machiavelli.

Dr Evil on April 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

This is the editorial page–they’re entitled to take sides and even engage in hypocrisy. The newsroom is a different story…it might take them another couple of days to return to form.

cartooner on April 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I’m seeing a thread here between the Dems strategy towards the Arizona law before the SC and this “context and intent” business. The argument goes that whatever the Dems are doing is for the good of the country and whatever the Repubs are doing is for evil. Any law can be broken, ignored, run around whenever it’s a lefty cause. Any misleading editorials can be printed if it advances the left, but if the right makes even a mild attempt at doing the same thing then it’s Katy bar the door! Since old newspapers are dying and the NYT is in its death throws I suggest we all give them the same consideration that automaker Henry Ford must have done with the buggy whip manufacturers and that’s to ignore them. In 50 years the NYT will be a footnote the same as the buggy whip folks. Thank G-d for the new media!

neyney on April 25, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Context and intent make all the difference.

In other words, “He’s screwing us all and destroying the country, but he means well.”

UltimateBob on April 25, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Predictable explanation: it was wrong for Bush to exert executive power in order to bypass Congress, because he and Dick Cheney were trying to destroy the Republic. But Obama is only attempting to help people with his “we can’t wait” campaign; and in fact, he only reluctantly adopted this approach due to those evil Republicans whose sole objective is to ensure he fails. In this telling, it’s a wonder Obama hasn’t declared martial law.

“But Dick Cheney is a War Criminal!!!”

uppereastside

Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Unlike the Bush/Cheney team, Mr. Obama did not take office with the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency. That was not part of his agenda. Moreover, his executive actions often are more modest in their effect than the White House’s public relations team might admit.

One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others.
Niccolo Machiavelli

Dr Evil on April 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM

You ‘know it’s not so’ if you see it in the Times.

GarandFan on April 25, 2012 at 6:40 PM

The New York Times, now just a building that acrobats climb

Denns Miller

Not-a-Marxist on April 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Can we please stop the hand-wringing over Awlaki? He wasn’t assassinated, he was killed as a combatant. Just stop it. Because you are otherwise arguing that any German-American in Hitler’s inner circle or High Command had to be identified and captured and brought back to the US for trial, and couldn’t be bombed or shot in the course of the prosecution of the war. And if you believe that, you’re an idiot and there isn’t much that can be done for you.

GWB on April 25, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Rosenthal’s column appears in an online section of the Times laughably named “The Loyal Opposition”. Perhaps this title dates back to the Bush administration, because if the editors of the Times support President Obama on this, given their former stance, it’s hard to imagine what they would ever oppose.

It’s not. It’s a relatively new creation, within the last five or six months.

I only know this because it’s a sad part of my job to read Times editorials.

Red Cloud on April 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The Loyal Oposition to the Contitution of the United States.

cobrakai99 on April 25, 2012 at 8:50 PM

So, they are back to “Fake, but Accurate”. Typical libs. Feelings, nothing more than feelings. If it feels right, do it. Ends justify the means.

Dandapani on April 29, 2012 at 8:43 AM