Why didn't the NY Times report on the Van Jones Truther scandal?

Consider this akin to the fable of the man who killed his parents and asked for mercy on the basis of his status as an orphan.  The New York Post savages its hometown rival, the New York Times, for its explanation that a shortage of reporting resources forced them to ignore the minor story of a high-level adviser to the President being a conspiracy theorist about the 9/11 attacks.  The Post takes readers on a trip down Memory Lane to discover why the Times found itself unable to report on a situation that forced Van Jones to resign before Gray Lady readers even knew the problem existed:

“This is not an excuse,” the managing editor of The New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: “Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period.”

Here’s how long-staffed The New York Times actually is. Long after Glenn Beck reported — back in July — that Jones was history’s first communist czar, and even after Gateway Pundit reported, on Sept. 3, that Jones had signed a wackadoodle 9/11 “truther” petition, The Times sent two reporters to Boston (in a story published Friday, Sept. 4) to pre-report the non-story of Joseph P. Kennedy II’s run for Ted Kennedy’s seat. (He later said he wasn’t interested. Also, the picture of Joseph the Times ran was actually of his brother Max.)

On Sept. 5 (still no word about Van Jones being a Red Green), the Times’ crack political team informed us that the Naked Cowboy was dropping out of the mayoral race.

On Sept. 6, The Times broke the story that “Diane Sawyer, coolly regal, is a born anchor, albeit in an ever-evaporating sea” and, under a piece headlined “Reading Underground,” gave us all food for thought with the subhed, “Even while pressed against strangers, even while stumbling home from a party, New Yorkers read on the subway.”

The Times also offered this excuse:

Although Abramson’s excuse was not an excuse, she proceeded to offer another one: “Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official.”

Oh. And here I was, thinking that he was “one of Mr. Obama’s top advisers,” as I was told by, well, The Times, on its Caucus blog on Sept. 5. Confusing, confusing.

Only in Timesland can you be in charge of doling out $80 billion in contracts (“A Small White House Program” — The Times’ John M. Broder, on Sept. 6) and be less important than the Naked Cowboy.

Well, $80 billion doesn’t go as far as it used to go, either.  Heck, that’s just a tenth of Porkulus, which has saved or created a zillion jobs that no one can identify.

The Times’ lament appears to appeal to the journalistic community rather than the readership.  Poor us, it says; this is what happens when readership disappears.  We can’t cover the hot stories. No, this is why readership disappears — because editorial decisions get made for political pandering instead of actual news.  The Van Jones story could have been written from New York anyway.  After all, it doesn’t take a Washington DC IP address to see Van Jones’ name on the 9/11 Truther site.  Even putting that aside, did it take two reporters to get the breathless update on Joe Kennedy II and his non-existent political ambitions next year?

The Times didn’t want to cover the story of Van Jones because it made Barack Obama look bad.  They didn’t want to cover Eason Jordan’s scandal until he resigned because it made the Left and journalists look bad.  They don’t want to cover news — they want to make a political impact on behalf of their own biases.