The Times held a "Times Talks" event Tuesday night at TheTimesCenter (all one word), part of the new New York Times Building now dominating 40th and 41st Street in Midtown Manhattan like a behemoth power station. "Inside the News: The Issues & The Elections: Where Do the Candidates Stand?" was advertised as a sell-out, but there were at least 70 empty seats in the 373-seat auditorium.
From a low stage, Times journalists Richard Berke, Elisabeth Bumiller, Michael Gordon, David Leonhardt and Robin Toner took turns outlining the placement on the ideological spectrum of Obama and Clinton's various policies and advisors (McCain was often ignored). A bug kept zapping at the speakers in turn, to the amusement of the audience.
Around the 30-minute mark, moderator and Times Assistant Managing Editor (the title understates his influence) Richard Berke asked for a show of hands to measure support for the candidates. My very rough count in the darkened auditorium: 140 Obama supporters, 120 Clinton supporters, 50 independents and maybe half a dozen McCain supporters. Berke's follow-up call for Huckabee supporters drew derisive laughter.
Military correspondent Michael Gordon warned of the risk of increased sectarian violence in Iraq if Clinton and Obama really do pull troops out. (Gordon was chastised by his editors in January 2007 for daring to speak positively about the surge.)
Political reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, a frequent target of TimesWatch, said this about Bush's immigration plan:
Bush proposed in 2005 a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws that got him in terrible trouble because it was considered by many to be humane and had a --
The rest of her statement was drowned out by audience laughter.
The second question during audience Q&A came from a British-accented NYU journalism student who criticized the merits of the paper's notorious McCain affair story. Richard Berke defended it:
We thought and still think that the story was important for people to know about. The reporters that we had on the story spent a lot of time and dug up a lot of information that, you know, we couldn't put it all in the story that gave us full confidence in what we had. And we felt it was important for people to know. I remember sitting there thinking, "How can we withhold from our readers the fact that there were these incidents of McCain's aides, worried to death about his involvement with this lobbyist, and going to intervene and having communications with them. Who are we to withhold that from the public?
Berke said they "totally stand by" the story, and followed up:
And so the storyline continued, but you'll notice the McCain people, despite other news organizations writing all we had, they still kept it against the big bad New York Times. As Elisabeth said, we're sort of an easy, popular target. So, they're just keeping it New York Times, the bad New York Times.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Don't withold anything NYT,
March 5, 2008 - 13:53 ET by RickTaLifeDon't withold anything NYT, please, keep putting out fraudulent stories for the world to see, the more you do it, the less you mean to the country. :-D You have my complete and total permission to continue your spiral into the abyss. :-)
Withhold
March 5, 2008 - 14:03 ET by allanfSo why did you withhold the story about John Kerry having an affair in the 2004 election?
..drowned out by audience laughter?
March 5, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Gary HallClay, this caught my attention:
Oh my - just a wee bit of an inside joke. The fringe left openly laughing becuase they had successfully pulled the wool over the desires of "we the people."
A quick analysis: President Bush's immigration plan falls way to the left of what the majority of the voters in this country wanted (per historic polling - 70%+ want zero illegal immigration, and greatly reduced legal immigration) which is pretty much in line with the Lou Dobbs view (although they don't realize that because of the MSM's biased negative treatment of Dobbs).
The NY Times view of immigration reform, which finds much comfort amongst the majority of the MSM, I would suggest represents a view that resides only amongst the fringe 10-15% of the far left.
The MSM (inc. the NY Times) brought down the Bush effort, by capitalizing on the distance between the majority view (to the right of Bush) and the Bush plan, and by simultaneously flooding the airwaves and print medium during this period of time with never ending stories of suffering and woe amongst the illegal immigrant population, all meant to force voters to question what they had thought they, and everyone else, believed in all along.
Which are you saying here,
March 5, 2008 - 15:30 ET by dscottWhich are you saying here, the MSM/libs used the illegal immigration "reform" issue to 1. split the country from W in a political black ops move or 2. tried to use W to get the rest of the country to take one step closer to accept open boarders? Or 3. both, in a Machaevellian plan for a two-fer?
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
dscott
March 5, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Gary Hall1. absolutely -- allowing Bush to secure a modest (I'm being generous) compromise between the moderate R's and the left of center D's (as defined by historical views).
2. absolutely - they stopped Bush, now they are pushing for Obama and a super majority of D's in both houses (run by Pelosi and Reid/Kennedy), which in no sense of the imagination will ever pass anything that resembles what 80% of the voters ever bargained for.
No. 3 wins...
Reminder: Here is Harry Reid, only 10 years back:
Reid's old view then has long been representative of the mainstream voter, D & R alike. It's the MSM media that has successfully, in a very short period of time, pushed Americans to question their long held view. The MSM will attack anyone not in line with them, including the likes of that staunch old Democrat, Lou Dobbs.
It warms my heart to watch
March 5, 2008 - 14:20 ET by suzycreamcheeseIt warms my heart to watch the NYT go down in flames. I'd prefer it happen sooner than later, but we don't all get our druthers. Keep up the good work, NYT! I'm looking forward to another article soon about layoffs at your paper.
So, they're just keeping it
March 5, 2008 - 14:32 ET by bigtimerSo, they're just keeping it New York Times, the bad New York Times.
The evil NYTs...the enemy within.
Anything and everything to hurt our country during a time of war...regardless of the cost to anyone anywhere.
Throw in the WaPo too.
NYT editor: 'Who are we to
March 5, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Chris NormanNYT editor: 'Who are we to withold' our McCain Hit piece 'from the public?'
Well, we already knew you're not a responsible paper.
The ratio seems about right...
March 5, 2008 - 15:34 ET by SyriusClay,
Looking at the voter turnout over the past few months indicates the audience ratio is on par with the electorate. No support for the Republican ticket so far...scant numbers of supporters for McCain.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Yet McCain is ahead of both
March 5, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Chris NormanYet McCain is ahead of both of them in the polls. Coverage is determined by turnout? I can't believe you shared that opinion with the rest of us.
The GOP has selected McCain...
March 5, 2008 - 16:20 ET by SyriusChris,
The News cycle or MSM is focused on the sizzle. You're saying McCain has sizzle in his message & that the MSM should be focused on his story?!? They want Obama? Or maybe Hill? I'm not sure, but, I do think the MSM likes the infighting and the 'race' to the White House. There will be plenty of time for McCain to get trashed with the rest of them. For now, let McCain enjoy the cool refreshing waters of non-publicity. He should collect and extract as much money from the radical right wingnuts as he can before the true contest heats up. Come on, you're not enjoying the Dems beating on each other just like the MSM? Get real.
Just for the sheer joy of it, I hope Hillary stays in the race for as long as she can without the pressure of her party telling her to 'kiss and make up'.
What are the polls saying about a Clinton/ Obama ticket up against McCain/ ('younger, white guy') ticket?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I can't believe I have to
March 5, 2008 - 17:29 ET by Chris NormanI can't believe I have to defend and explain that it's the media's sacred responsibility to fully and fairly cover the choices of candidates the public has in a national election - no matter who has the "sizzle". This is a lot more important than the E! Network covering the Fall television shows.
Money, Ratings, & Mo'money, baby!
March 5, 2008 - 20:32 ET by SyriusChris,
There will soon be a National Election once the Primary/ Caucus season is over for the Dems. Since the GOP realized early on the best candidate for the job was McCain, the MSM is focused on the Clinton/ Obama brawl for now. Grab your popcorn and enjoy the show. As for McCain he's saving cash and enjoying the free 'attack' positions he'll be able to use against the victor of the brawl.
By the way, this is a popularity contest and has been for decades. There's no prerequisite for attaining the most powerful position in the world. Just pander to the special interests, gladhand everyone you meet, ask for more money and make sure you're a Christian. Being a good actor and a sleaze bag helps, too.
Syrius
And I thought I was
March 5, 2008 - 21:10 ET by dscottAnd I thought I was cynical.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
I'm going to disagree with
March 5, 2008 - 16:30 ET by dscottI'm going to disagree with that correlation since audience ratio is dependent on the gate keepers to the studio. One can easily make the case that the numbers of people attending as an audience and those who get to ask the questions are selected or filtered, not randomly chosen. Case in point, the MSM sponsored debate with the gay military guy raising gay issues who was exposed out to be a Clinton plant. The track record of the MSM disqualifies it as reasonable source of inference. The track record of the NYT is even more so dubious. MSM studio audiences are on the order of banana republic crowds turning out to validate everyone loves el Presidente. It called shilling.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
It's an exaggerated claim.
March 5, 2008 - 16:41 ET by Syriusdscott,
My comment was a small poke and not intended to be more than that. The event was a 'preaching to the choir' sort of audience anyway...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott