NYT Glosses Over Bill Ayers's Terrorism, Attacks Anti-Obama Ad Instead


"Obama Campaign Wages Fight Against Conservative Group's Ads" is the third story from New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg in five days that attacks an anti-Obama ad from the American Issues Project that questions the ties between Obama and homegrown terrorist Bill Ayers, cofounder of the Weathermen, the group that tried to blow up the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

In each story, Rutenberg appears far more worked up about the legality of the ads than in the underlying facts of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist turned professor of education in Chicago. The first 10 paragraphs of Rutenberg's online filing Wednesday are devoted to the back-and-forth machinations, again questioning the group's funding while suggesting dubious links to the McCain campaign. Rutenberg noted that Obama is striking back with a counter-ad and the threat of legal action to have the ads taken down.

For good measure, Rutenberg took another bite out of the best-selling book "The Obama Nation" (his first one was in a front-page story on August 13).

On Wednesday he wrote:

Its formation followed the recent release of a book by Jerome Corsi -- who co-authored a book containing the Swift Boat group's claims against Mr. Kerry -- that contained various factual errors and unsubstantiated claims against Mr. Obama.

After Rutenberg mildly explained how the Obama camp is trying to force the ads off the air by leaning on the Justice Department and election laws, he finally addressed Ayers' terrorism in three brief paragraphs:

Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.

He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.

Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."

That's not the full story on Ayers. Ayers's group didn't target a random "government building" like a sewage treatment plant, but the U.S. Capitol. In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

Rutenberg's August 23 story, "A Billionaire Finances Ads Hitting Obama," tracked similar ground, finding Rutenberg again disturbed...not about the allegations, but about the ad. Again he focused mainly on what he seems to think are the sleazy machinations of the American Issues Project and its funding, devoting the first seven paragraphs to who belongs to AIP and whether or not they have dubious links to the McCain camp. In contrast, Rutenberg breezed by Ayers's bombing of government buildings in the '70s in four brisk sentences.

For good measure, Rutenberg claimed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been "discredited."

The billionaire, Harold Simmons, donated nearly $2.9 million on Aug. 12 to the American Issues Project, the group running the advertisements, papers it has filed with the Federal Election Commission show.

In 2004, Mr. Simmons donated $2 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose advertisements against Mr. Kerry included one that, with allegations since discredited, impugned his military service as a Swift boat captain during the Vietnam War.

But the only part of the whole story that has truly been discredited is Kerry's long-standing claim that he spent the Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia. See this Times Watch report for a full account of the Times's animus toward the Swift Vets' allegations against John Kerry.

Rutenberg's August 22 story, "Group Plans Ad Criticizing Obama's Ties To Ex-Radical," also hardly addressed the Obama-Ayers association. Instead, the first seven paragraphs are devoted to the AIP's donors and questioning the ad's legality. Eventually Rutenberg devoted all of three paragraphs to the actual issue raised by the ad. Rutenberg also downplayed the Obama-Ayers relationship:

Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, both of whom went on to become law professors, hosted Mr. Obama at their Chicago home in 1995 when Mr. Obama was running for office, although that was not considered a vital moment in his political career. Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization focused on welfare reform and affordable housing. In April, Mr. Obama said Mr. Ayers was "not somebody who I exchanged ideas from on a regular basis" and called him "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Once again the liberals show they hate free speech

They say they are for it, until they disagree with it, then they want it silenced.

The ads cannot be illegal by definition, because the 1st Amendment to the Constitution says :"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Therefore no advertisement run by a private person or group can possibly be illegal.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

That's your standard

That's your standard liberal reaction, c5! Instead of arguing on substance, proving that the ad is false, they try to get it pulled. I read somewhere that they don't want to make the same mistake as Kerry, by not responding Well that's nice, but instead of just responding they go into Overkill Mode and try to shut it down.

Obama is no greenhorn at getting rid of opposition, either. I posted in the Open Thread that he won his first election to the IL Senate not by votes, but by getting all his opponents removed from the ballot, and being unopposed.  The link to the CNN story on it is there, if you want to see it.

Lakoff's Elephant

Despite being at odds with George Lakoff's (rhymes with) politics, he does make and interesting theoretical pint in his last book and the "Lakoff rule" may be in play here. 

For those of you not aware of this, Lakoff argued that if you tell somebody NOT to think of an elephant, they can't help but think of an elephant.  He expanded this to argue that only Republicans are capable of manipulating language in this way and that "progressives" need to learn how to master this subliminal passive-aggressive linguistic technique.  That latter argument is rather dubious as politicians of all stripes have learned how to use language to their advantage.  (Ironically, Lakoff implicitly makes the argument that leftists are stupid, to which I can't disagree.)

Here, the NYT may be inadvertantly playing into the Lakoff (rhymes with) rule.  By criticizing the American Issues Project (AIP) ad, they are going to get people to think about Ayers.  People not quite sure of who he is may be inclined to find out a bit more, or to watch the ad.  By trying to dismiss this ad, the NYT may actually be making it more effective.

<insert witty signature here>

Addendum...

add to this that most people see the MSM as biased and the NYT may be playing into AIP's strategy. Granted, the remaining NYT subscribers probably are of the ideological tilt of Pinch and company, so they won't be affected. But as this news story leaks out to other venues, it will start to reach people who are already skeptical of the NYT to begin with and who may not have been aware of Ayers. <insert witty signature here>

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

"He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct."

I believe it had to do w/illegal wire tapping but even if that is the case, what does it have to do w/his participation. It doesn't negate his criminal activity, nor does it mean he's innocent. The SOB admitted to everything AND WISHES HE DID MORE!

Also:

"hosted Mr. Obama at their Chicago home in 1995 when Mr. Obama was running for office, although that was not considered a vital moment in his political career. "

How the hell could it not be a vital moment, it was the begining of his freaking career.

FREAKING LIBERALS!

THANK GOD FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! GOD SAVE THE PRESIDENT! AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!