New York Times Will Bash Conservatives, Even if They Work for the UN

Once you work for The Washington Times, the left and the media never stop hating you. The New York Times proves that with an attack on former Times Managing Editor Josette Sheeran.

I am more than happy to come to Josette's aid (not that she needs it) because I worked directly with her in my time at the Times. We haven't spoken in years, but Josette was great to work for and both gave me some big responsibilities and treated me with respect.

Josette now has the audacity to be the United Nations World Food Program's executive director and simultaneously come from the "most conservative wing of the Bush administration," according to the Times.

The article takes a wide variety of digs at her and says she "was from the outset an unlikely candidate to run the World Food Program, the world's largest humanitarian aid organization."

Why? Because conservatives don't give to charity or because we don't like food? It certainly isn't because of her background. Look at how the same bad Times article describes her experience:

"After leaving journalism, she became the head of Empower America, a Reagan-era conservative research organization that is dedicated to fighting poverty through free-market forces and individual responsibility. Later, she moved to the Bush administration, where she specialized in programs aimed at moving developing nations toward economic self-sufficiency."

That record alone should be enough to stifle critics, but this is the UN and since they mostly hate America and anything conservative, critics are plentiful. The story, by Elisabeth Rosenthal, dredges up Josette's former membership in the Unification Church which Rosenthal describes as "a conservative church that many Americans distrust." Over at The New York Times, that would be any church, not just the Moonies.

Although Rosenthal admits Josette "has generally impressed staff members with her enthusiasm and grasp of the issues," she then cites several cowardly staffers who attack anonymously. "But many within the agency were initially ‘uncomfortable' and ‘nervous' about her appointment, thinking that her background was a ‘bad fit' for the mission of the agency, said one staff member who has worked in many postings over two decades."

That's pretty much the theme. Scary conservative lady running UN program and the Times looks at her like they were watching an animal at the zoo.

I know it's a small point, but I find it hilarious when I see the Times refer to The Washington Times as the "conservative Washington Times." How often do you see the media call the NYT the "liberal New York Times?" Answer: Pretty much never. And the NYT is far more liberal than the Times is conservative. This is just one more reminder.