Don't want to take NB's word about the NYT's liberal bias affecting its news coverage? Here's James Kirchick, Assistant Editor of the liberal New Republic, writing in TNR's "Plank" blog last night about the New York Times McCain article [emphasis added]:
What Story?So here's the essence of the Times' 3,000-word "bombshell" on John McCain.
John Weaver, whom McCain fired last summer (indentified in the Times piece as "now an informal campaign adviser" to McCain, which sounds like a puffed-up euphemism for "unemployed") says that 8 years ago, he and two other former employees who have since "become disillusioned" (read: disgruntled), suspected that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist.
The rest of the article, rehashing old news about the Keating Five, is, as Rich Lowry says, complete "window dressing." If you had been wondering whether the Times was in the tank for Obama, well, here's your answer.
A bit later in the evening, responding to a reader who had pointed out that the Times had endorsed Hillary, not Obama, Kirchick amended his initial post:
Seeing that Hillary's about finished, I don't think the Times' endorsement of Hillary is particularly relevant anymore. Moreover, it's the editorial board which endorses, not the news department. Perhaps I should amend my post to say that the Times is "in the tank" for the eventual Democratic nominee.
My take: what's particularly damning in this is Kerchick's observation that "it's the editorial board which endorses, not the news department." In other words, even if the editorial page endorsed Hillary, the news department is pulling for Obama. So much for the Times' claim of objectivity in its news reporting.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tank for Obama?
February 21, 2008 - 07:09 ET by Cool ArrowI still say The Old Yellow Lady is in the tank for Hillary.
This piece was planted to make it look like it will be McCain saying: "Oh yeah? Look what's on youtube about Obama!"
With the Clintons, it's never thinking just one or two moves ahead.
♣ a seal
THE DEAD GRAY LADY
February 21, 2008 - 08:02 ET by SgthulkaGee, and now we hear this morning that the NYT WILL NOT be making any of the four "reporters" on this hit piece available to the public for questioning?
The only thing lower than the NYT's reporting standards is it's stock price.
Hehe.
the Times is "in the tank"
February 21, 2008 - 07:38 ET by motherbeltthe Times is "in the tank" for the eventual Democratic nominee.
A little OT, but speaking of the eventual Democratic nominee...have you guys noticed the survey ad here on NB? The question is "who will be the next President of the US?".....the picture with it shows only Obama and Her Royal Clintoness.....LOL
What's sad is they built
February 21, 2008 - 07:44 ET by jpm100What's sad is they built this around an unproven 'suspicion'.
How McCain Could Respond
February 21, 2008 - 08:03 ET by allanfThe New York Times, as ABC's Brian Ross did in 2006 with the Mark Foley story is attempting to influence events through
innuendo, unnamed sources and quiet whispers. In 2006 Ross was very sucessful.
I hope McCain calls the times out on this garbage. Instead of "answering questions" McCain should say the only questions that need answering is
"Why is the Times printing a hatchet job",
"Pinch needs to answer questions not me"
"Will the Times release all internal emails on this subject. If not what are they hiding?"
"Why does Pinch allow accusers to hide anonymously behind the name of his newspaper?"
"Is the Times attempting to influence the course of a Presidential Election"
"Should McCain Feingold be reformed to allow answers to newspaprt attacks.
"When will Pinch hold a press conference to respond to charges that his newspaper is a political hit machine.
MSNBC is saying that McCain
February 21, 2008 - 08:17 ET by motherbeltMSNBC is saying that McCain will be having a press conference at 9AM ET.....I imagine to address this issue.
Turning against the Times
February 21, 2008 - 08:19 ET by Gat New YorkThis is turning into another journliastic integrity case against the NY Times.
Bob Bennett stated this morning that the Times w\as provided with four pieces of evidence that clearly showed that McCain took positions counter to Iseman and her firm. But the Times intentionally ommitted those facts.
Mica Brezinski is appaled about the Times poor reporting.
Time magazine's Richard Stengle also portrayed the article as shoddy.
The Times is definately trying to influence the race - no doubt.
And as far as this former campaign worker I wonder where he will get work again.
Oh, please.
February 21, 2008 - 08:38 ET by motherbeltOh, for cryin' out loud!
The MSM had little or no interest in the recent (last year) situation with Dianne Feinstein being on the committee that awarded huge contracts to her husband's company...(she says no, I didn't influence anything, and they say Oh, OK then.)
But a possible connection of McCain to a lobbyist eight years ago is a major ethics scandal?
No agenda here...no bias...
Despicable
February 21, 2008 - 09:15 ET by Blogger Guy00001The left is completely despicable. Truth means nothing to them. Winning means everything. The Times deserves absolutely no respect.
Bob Bennett (Bill's bro,
February 21, 2008 - 09:16 ET by Jack BauerBob Bennett (Bill's bro, and an attorney for McCain) stated categorically on H&C, that the only reason the Slimes ran the story was because THE NEW REPUBLIC was about to run its story hitting the Slimes FOR NOT running the hit piece.
So I'm a bit confused about TNR assistant editor's comments.
Apparently it's BAD for the Times to be in the tank for any Democrat... but it's good for TNR to run hit pieces on the Slimes for NOT running hit pieces on McCain, until they do, then that's bad.
Have I got that right?
Yeah, pretty much, Jack.
February 21, 2008 - 09:44 ET by motherbeltYeah, pretty much, Jack. LOL
That's "the ethics of Liberalism"...you make it up as you go along... and consistency doesn't matter.
No OBAMA story front page
February 21, 2008 - 09:49 ET by PawpawNWhere's the story of OBAMA's land deal, where's the story of his alleged connections to big crime, etc, etc.? As I said elsewhere, and the words run true as BUYASSED not BIASED.....The NYT is SOOOOOOOO BUYASSSSSSSSSED!
"Bob Bennett (Bill's bro,
February 21, 2008 - 14:39 ET by ckc1227"Bob Bennett (Bill's bro, and an attorney for McCain) stated
categorically on H&C, that the only reason the Slimes ran the story
was because THE NEW REPUBLIC was about to run its story hitting the
Slimes FOR NOT running the hit piece.
So I'm a bit confused about TNR assistant editor's comments."
If I'm not mistaken, I think they also called TNR a far right blog. I never go there, so which is it, liberal, or far right?
TNR is in the very-large, bipartisan
February 21, 2008 - 14:54 ET by sarcasmo"Pro-big-spending but won't-ever-admit-it" crowd, which these days defies a single political label because of inconvenient issues like enormous spending levels under a "conservative."
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.