On September 10th a now-famous video was released showing an Acorn official explaining to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute how to submit fake tax forms and how best to procure illegal benefits for some “very young” girls they wished to bring in from another country to work as prostitutes. Within hours the story was all over the blogosphere and Fox News; the following day a flood of news outlets including the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, ABC News online and even MSNBC began covering the story, and over the next several days the Boston Globe and others weighed in.
The uber-Democrat New York Times, though, remained silent as the days passed; even when the US Senate voted to cut off all federal funding to Acorn they didn’t see fit to mention it. Finally, six days late, the NYT published an article headlined “ Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn.” The piece fairly screamed between the lines of resentment at having to publish a story so unhelpful to the Obama Administration, and began not with the gist of the story but with editorial context meant to mitigate the damaging information they were about to reluctantly provide:
“For months during last year’s presidential race, conservatives sought to tar the Obama campaign with accusations of voter fraud and other transgressions by the national community organizing group ACORN, which had done some work for the campaign…”
This tone continued: “Conservative advocates and broadcasters were gleeful”; the Acorn tape was “the latest scalp claimed by those on the right who have made no secret of their hope to weaken the Obama administration..” “Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks: mobilizing people to dig up dirt, trumpeting it on talk radio”; a quoted member of a liberal think tank said conservatives were using “McCarthyite” tactics and “harping on minor failings and distorting records.” “This is dangerous stuff,” he added.
Several days ago, after prolonged criticism of the NYT, Public Editor Clark Hoyt finally gave the reason for the NYT’s blackout: turns out they simply hadn’t been watching the news:
“Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was ‘slow off the mark,’ and blamed ‘insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.’ She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media.”
Ah, that explains it: the Senate’s decision to cut off funding to Acorn was actually just an assertion made by members of the “opinion media“, and the statements coming out of the mouths of Acorn officials on that tape were merely the opinions of conservatives.
Imagine that.
Syncro
Which begs the question…If an acorn falls in the forest and a leftoid fails to hear it…..
Reality Speaks
Growth of $10,000 Invested in NYT Stock
http://i34.tinypic.com/6sxatx.jpg
Good point EBD. So now we are supposed to believe, according to Hoyt, that the whole affair was not news at all. Apparently, it was a campaign in the opinion media. If there is a conservative angle to the story, it’s not news, it’s opinion. If there is a Liberal angle, it’s news.
This is a pretty accurate summary of the NY Times these days.
Which begs the question…If an acorn falls in the forest and a leftoid fails to hear it…..
Posted by: Gus at September 30, 2009 1:53 AM
Off topic, with apologies to Kate. Just a personal pet peeve of mine, Gus: what you should have said was “raises the question.” To “beg the question” references a specific fallacy in logic, more commonly known as the circular argument.
That the phrase “beg the question” has fallen into the common vernacular to be synonymous with “raise the question” is unfortunate, but I try to politely raise it when I can.
Not to belabour the point, but it’s clear that Hoyt is explicitly stating that this event, to the NY Times, was not news at all, to them it was politics. To the NY Times, the behaviour of Acorn officials seems to be irrelevant to the story. They have no interest in Acorn. They are clearly stating they are only interested in the reporters that uncovered the story and the media that reported the story. But the story itself, to the NY Times, never actually happened.
On topic.
The NYT continues to squirm and wriggle like worms on a hook. They only come kicking and screaming to the party since the story legitimately “has legs”. This applies not only to the ACORN story, but the Van Jones story as well, which they also ignored for days.
Also, it’s more than a bit rich to read this fellow state that it’s a tactic of the right-wing to mobilize people, dig up dirt, etc. I can only think of the dozens of people sent up to small-town Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin absent any proof, yet ignoring the patently questionable (multiple!) associations of Bam Bam during last year’s presidential campaign.
One honestly has to wonder if these left-wing zealots have some kind of mental disorder.
Maybe they thought a few selected Acorn employees being set up by liars was not a story.
I find their motto ‘withour fear or favour’ laughable. Perhaps the Times will consider reporting the news rather than their editors and writers opinions.
Is it inconceivable that the reason the MSM is creating an “opinion media editor” is to ensure that they can spin breaking news like the ACORN scandal more positively? Or am I being too cynical?
~~favill~~
the spirit of Durantyism liveth on…
Colin from Misson BC @4:16 – “I try to politely raise it when I can.”
Split infinitives are what get up my nose. 🙂
On T – is it possible to believe that they’re so incompetent down at the NYT that they don’t watch the news, or are they, in fact, lying liars? Which would be worse?
Two things:
1) You are right. The NYT does a bad job of investigating things. They are pro-Obama to the same extent that during the 1998-2005 period they were pro-Bush.
2) The film was made by conservative film-makers and ACORN has a police report to prove that they called the cops to get them off their property.
“State run fringe media today reported on the damaging carbon footprint left by those terrible racists and others who criticize our glorious leader and his supporters like Acorn………..”
“On another front, the Fringe Media Rescue Bill providing $500 billion in forgivable loans to bankrupt pro Obamugabe news organizations will easily pass the Senate. A spokesperson for the NYT expressed satisfaction that the great financial sacrifices made by “great” newspapers, shareholders, pension funds, and others were finally being recognized.”
“Negotiations continue to trade almost all US Navy aircraft carrier task forces to China in return for redeeming half the American government debt held there. The sticking point seems to be the state of Hawaii. While the administration is offering the Chinese a 25 year nominal cost lease of all naval facilities in the state, China has much more extensive plans.”
I don’t think anyone these days is foolish enough to think that the liberal media is even remotely objective.
The New York Slimes are merely just another lefty rag sheet which would explain their slumping sales.
And the surging popularity of the FOX network.
The Hagggard,Lying Lady has not been a “news”paper for years.They are now merely a (not disguised at all) op-ed for lefturds.I see scrotum’s lyin eyes are wide shut,again.
What’s odd is their rage about the two filmmakers; the dems have all the political power right now, if they didn’t want to cut off funding to acorn, they didn’t have to. Why don’t they scream about their party’s lack of support?
And isn’t it hilarious to listen to the rat-like quibbling about the interviewers? They were trespassing! They were lying!
A lot of organizations spend money to keep tabs on their employees, acorn should be glad this rot was exposed. Unless they don’t regard it as rot…
“but I try to politely raise it when I can.”
– thanks for that, I’ve pretty much given up on the beg the question usage and restrict myself to yelling at the tv set when i hear it. I don’t mind the average person doing it, but it annoys me from the so-called professionals. Or, better yet, “the team are ready…”
So am I missing something or did the NYT just say that they didn’t know to put the item in their “news”paper because they didn’t watch or listen to the news.
I think the asteroid just hit!!
Could there be a connection between this and what I read last week about Obama contemplating a bailout for the newspaper industry? Just askin’
Jim: “the liberal media is even remotely objective.” Since we’re correcting grammar: media is plural for medium, like: one news medium, (TV), two news media, (TV & radio) three news media, (TV, radio, newspapers) many media (MSM). So, it should be: “the liberal media are even remotely objective.”
They must have been ignoring their email too, because I bet they got a couple hundred “WTF?” messages and a couple thousand “neener neener neeeeeener!!!!” taunts.
Which is why their stock price -continues- to slip, why their circulation and ad revenue are in the dumper, and why they pretty much had to mortgage their headquarters building to stay in print. Bankruptcy looms, unless they go with the government ownership angle.
I wonder how little Pinchy Schultzberger is going to like reporting to some lower echelon factotum in the White House Annex annex basement for his marching orders every morning?
Nicely written EBD. (Also, thank you to the grammar police! I enjoy reading those comments; especially when, as above, they are done with grace and humour). [I’m sure I misused the semi-colon. Anyways.]
What always interests me is reader comments at the end of web articles. Now, this may be a biased sample, because I predominantly read articles that are linked through right-of-centre websites, but it seems to me that even if an article tilts left, the comments tilt right, significantly so.
Sample bias, or evidence that public opinion is discordant with our “media overlords”?
“Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks: mobilizing people to dig up dirt, trumpeting it on talk radio”
~NYT
Somebody has to do the investigative reporting that the legacy media hasn’t been doing for a long time.
The NYT does a bad job of investigating things. They are pro-Obama to the same extent that during the 1998-2005 period they were pro-Bush
~A. Nonymouse
The NYT was pro-Bush?
Ha!
In your dreams.
Oz, I was hoping that no one would respond to A. Nonymouse, the way to deal with these idiots is to ignore them.
Harry J. Balsac wrote “maybe (the NYT) thought a few selected Acorn employees being set up by liars was not a story.”
Okay, so what’s the reason for them not covering the Senate’s decision to cut off all federal funds to — Obama-connected — Acorn?
Dale,
I couldn’t let uninformed readers think, because of what A. Nonymouse had written, that the NYT had been supportive of President Bush or that the extraordinary support that the NYT lavishes on Obama is something they have been doing with all U.S. Presidents.
It was on topic, too.
Because “Senate cutting off Acorn funds” is just a pr scam so why give it legs? Nothing already approved and signed off by “O” gets cut off until a countermand is passed by Senate/House, then reconciled if they differ, and then signed by “O”. The last two steps “ain’t gonna happen, no way”.
Oz,
I completely understand, it’s just that these people make these ridicules statements, not backed up with any facts, just to get us to respond, and it annoys the hell out of me. Which of course is what they intend.
Have a good day, Dale…
I think there is a bigger message here too. Everyone knows the liberal media is biased and/or blatantly dishonest; what chills me is how they close ranks around the people that pull this crap and try to sweep it under the rug.
As a conservative, I want people like this punished regardless of the political damage it may cause.
The liberal left has become collectively sick, and their politics and ideologies are only fit for the filthiest people.
Split infinitives are what get up my nose. 🙂
Posted by: Black Mamba at September 30, 2009 8:43 AM
Ha! Touché.
Maybe they thought a few selected Acorn employees being set up by liars was not a story.
Posted by: Harry J. Balsac at September 30, 2009 6:33 AM
I believe the thrust of scrotum’s argument here is, “LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you LA LA LA LA!”
Colin, you to help me clean up my keyboard (too busy laughing) and then we can have a beer.
Colin from Mission B. C., Thanks for the grammar point. I don’t mind being corrected at all. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last time I mess up. Old habits die hard.
So, a newspaper wasn’t watching the news? And they are shocked that their industry is fading away faster than they ever dreamed…
Ken…sorry about the keyboard, but more than happy to share a pint with you. Anytime!
Gus, happy to point out (politely, of course) common grammatical errors. You’re in entirely good company. As Black Mamba pointed out, I stepped in a pile of grammatical poo myself.
:-}}}