The New York Times is going the way of MSNBC. I suspect they're going to find that appealing to the Angry Left is not a successful business model.
Rather than investigate the campaign donations paid out to Senators Dodd, Clinton, and specifically, Barack Obama, by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the NYT focused instead on McCain aide Rick Davis's employment by the consulting firm, Davis & Manafort.
The McCain campaign's response was quick and direct:
the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006. Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Let's play compare and contrast: The NYT found a Mccain campaign adviser's former employment to be front page newsworthy, but ignored the campaign donations given to Barack Obama by Fannie Mae.
Should the NYT hold the two of these men to the same standard? Which of their roles in the housing crisis should feel the greatest heat of journalistic criticism?
The lesson, as always, from the NYT, is that they will run stories on the flimsiest of evidence if they will hurt John McCain, but will ignore anything negatively related to Barack Obama.
Americans are smart enough to see through the biases of the NYT. As the Grey Lady continues to editorialize its news reporting into insignificance, it will continue its downard spiral towards insolvency. Don't believe me? Look no further than MSNBC for a cautionary tale.
—Jacob S. Lybbert is an editorial associate at NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Fantastic response
September 26, 2008 - 14:50 ET by Mica the MagnificentI loved the McCain campaign response.
Fantastic. Finally they are learning to response with e-m-o-t-i-o-n and outrage.
I would have responded:
F*** off, fish wrap!
Goodneth gwatheths gweat bawls of fiwa - - Barney Frank doing his best Jerry Lee Lewis
Fraud
September 26, 2008 - 15:21 ET by KC MulvilleI wish the law would allow the NY Times to be sued for fraud when they claim objectivity. After all, they're selling a product that claims to be objective, and yet they are demonstrably biased.
They should be sued out of business. They may be free from government infringement, but since they're a for-profit enterprise, I don't see why they can't be sued by the same standards used for other for-profit businesses.
Yeah, that'll never happen, but it should.
KC Mulville
September 26, 2008 - 15:29 ET by MrShyIf there WAS such a law, they'd be sued several times a day...
Geez, at that rate they would have already been sued out of business back in the '90's!
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
What's wrong with that?
September 26, 2008 - 18:33 ET by KC Mulville"If there WAS such a law, they'd be sued several times a day..."
Good. It'll keep the lawyers distracted from screwing other people.
You know, Catholics have been butting our heads up against the screwy idea that our ideas are "imposing" on others. Yet this NY Times beast imposes their attitudes on the rest of us, 24/7/365.
Truth
September 26, 2008 - 15:41 ET by jaywlMore and more I think truth and honesty mean absolutely nothing this year. The entire political world is so upside down it reminds me of Animal Farm. The media and politicians are so far past reasonable behavior they do not even know when their words betray the trust the people have given them. Brad Sherman (D) Ca. was just interviewed by Shepard Smith. He gave us his brand of boilerplate, including the remark the President wanted $700 Billion in unmarked bills. It matters little which side he came down on for these remarks. What he did say was that if no bill was passed by Monday the Congress would adjourn and "go home, will talk with our constituents, who will demand a completely different bill." Is he saying, without thinking about or knowing the implications, that he knows his constituents don't want the bill he supports, that the Congress needs to pass it before his constituents see him at home. Is he saying he doesn't give a damn what they think or that he knows what is good for them even if they don't.
Well now,
September 26, 2008 - 15:49 ET by docbI would say that $30,000 per month and $15,000 last month is decidedly different than campaign contributions....I would say that to call yourself the deregulator' is owning up to KEATING 5 and the GRAMM BIll of 1999...that got us to our current state of affairs is good indication of what you would continue to do to this country...
The repub solution is corp tax decrease and capital gains relaxation...REMEMBER HOOVER"S solution in 1931...same same and the banks collapsed within six months....
Japan tried the same thing in 1998 and they collapsed too...Think Paulson/Branecke/Mc Bush are playing for six months and then blame the Dem's
I would say that $30,000
September 26, 2008 - 16:28 ET by BDI would say that $30,000 per month and $15,000 last month is decidedly different than campaign contributions....I would say that to call yourself the deregulator' is owning up to KEATING 5 and the GRAMM BIll of 1999...that got us to our current state of affairs is good indication of what you would continue to do to this country...
The repub solution is corp tax decrease and capital gains relaxation...
REMEMBER HOOVER"S solution in 1931...
I love how the whole
September 26, 2008 - 17:43 ET by HypocriteHaterI love how the whole article is basically telling us MCCAIN'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER IS CORRUPT!!.
But then at the second to last paragraph we're finally told, oh yeah, by the way, Obama has received about $126,000 in contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...nothing to see here, move along!!
I'm sure they're hoping many of their readers don't finish reading the article so they can be left with the impression McCain was in bed with Fannie/Freddie.
I also love the the following statements sprinkled throughout the article: "the people familiar with the deal said"
and:
"according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement"
and especially:
"Four outside consultants — three Democrats and a Republican, also speaking on condition of anonymity — said".
Does the Times ever use any named sources when writing about Republicans?