Fox News Watch: White House Leaked Friday's Immigration Announcement to NYT and Time Magazine
Days before President Obama proclaimed a new Justice Department edict concerning the deportation of young illegal immigrants, both the New York Times and Time magazine ran huge stories on Hispanics in America.
According to Fox News Watch panelists Saturday, this was no coincidence (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JON SCOTT, HOST: And then under the heading of coincidence or manipulation, we have this. Time magazine ran its cover story called “We Are Americans, Only We Are Just Not Legal.” The New York Times on Sunday ran a story on frustrated Hispanic, the frustrated Hispanic electorate, and then on Friday came the surprise announcement that the Department of Justice is going to ease up on deporting the illegal immigrant children or young people or offspring in this country. There any coincidence?
JUDITH MILLER, FOX NEWS: Utter coincidence.
(Laughter)
MILLER: I mean, clearly, everything that the president does from this point on that affects the Hispanic community is going to be seen in a political light whether or not it is the right thing to do, which in this instance I think it was.
JAMES PINKERTON, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE: The interesting question is whether the New York Times and Time magazine had any inkling that maybe the president would be doing this and they wanted to get ahead of the story and help sort of get credit for being part of the wave. That is an interesting question.
MILLER: You don't think that they would have reported it if they’d had an inkling?
PINKERTON: Actually, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have reported it because they wanted the scoop. They didn’t want to, they wouldn’t want to blow up their own story by saying, look, if they get a wink from their friend Eric Holder or Axelrod, any of these people, “Hey, we’re, the administration is going to do something good,” they want to be a part of it.
MILLER: They wanted the story.
PINKERTON: They got, they got the story, but now they get credit for having impact. They can say, “We're moving the needle."
RICHARD GRENELL, FORMER BUSH ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR OF COMMUNCATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: As a former spokesman who used to brief reporters right before announcements, I can tell you unequivocally someone briefed Time and New York Times to say, “This announcement is coming. If you can hold it till a certain time, we'll give you access.” That's how it works, and in this case, absolutely how it happened.
SCOTT: That's the inside view.
Isn't that nice?
So not only is the White House leaking national security information to news outlets in order to strengthen the president's reelection chances, it's doing the same with major policy change announcements.
It really is a state run media now, isn't it?
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:31am.
....To get the POSPOTUS another four years...
Why not tell this tidbit?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:31am.
After all, their reporters get Top Secret briefings from this White House.
I have a feeling that if Obama gets booted from office, the NYT and Time will both get booted "out of business."
One can always hope!
Same with MSNBC
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:57am.
I very much believe the hosts on MSNBC think if Romney is elected, the jig is up and their entire network folds. I really think that. The one "Conservative" on the network Moaning Joe has turned on Moderate Romney and said he voted for Ron Paul. Imagine that.
MESS-DNC....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:13am.
...It just occurred to me that instead of referring to them as the "hosts on MSNBC", perhaps it would be more appropo to call them the "hostiles on MSNBC" since they have a very pronounced agenda...
I'll take it one step further.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:45am.
The liberal media is overtly directing Administration policy.
Team Obama are just the follow-thru guys.
MILLER: I mean, clearly,
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:55am.
MILLER: I mean, clearly, everything that the president does from this point on that affects the Hispanic community is going to be seen in a political light whether or not it is the right thing to do.....
Left unsaid..."for the president's re-election campaign."
OOPS! I read that wrong the
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:52am.
OOPS! I read that wrong the first time.
Miller actually did say what I was inferring.
It's going to be seen as political??
Well, DUH!
Maybe that's because it IS....
I maintain that before Obama came out for gay "marriage" (and now he's bringing Michelle into it too!) they poll-tested and found out that it was a risk worth taking, because gays would be more likely to sit this one out than blacks if he didn't pander to them.
hispanics
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:21pm.
The hispanic activists and O's cohorts in the msm might applaud this move but how does it help the millions of legal hispanics deal with unemployment?
How does it make their job seeking any better?
How does it help America if precious resources are spent on illegals to help them obtain employment.
Are unemployed Americans supposed to cheer this new threat to their future?
It's not even a matter of
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:18pm.
It's not even a matter of employment.
He just wants it known that he's not going to kick them out; they know that's the first step toward amnesty.
Don't forget: with liberals, it's always about incrementalism.
This wasn't even very hard
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:18am.
This wasn't even very hard for a dope like me to figure out, at least with the Time magazine cover story...........I was wonderin' (Obamaspeak) what would drive them to make up that cover story, with so many other more precient issues going on, and then............KABOOM.........Boy Baraka gets up there and issues another one of his fatwahs, edicts, proclamations, and broadsides against our Constitution and the will of the American people.
I don't know what the NYT wrote, but - as my father used to call this type of thing before they stormed those little Japanese-held islands in the Pacific - the REGIME was 'softening up the beaches' by 'allowing' some of their loyal water-carriers to 'put the word out', before Boy BlahBlah issued his tyrannical ruling.
Maybe Newseek didn't make the cut, after running that 'First Gay President' story...............even though Boy Barry is undoubtedy a tilley-assed queebie with ambiguous sexual preferences, he couldn't have been to happy too be portrayed in that rainbow colored light.
I saw what you did there....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:43am.
...You wrote that using Baracko's "Down Home" voice, where he drops the last syllable so the libtards in his audience will feel like he is down with them. Also, I gotta tell ya, "tilley-assed queebie with ambiguous sexual preferences" caused me to blow snot all over the wife's laptop. Thanks for that and Happy Father's Day, Big Kahuna!
Well, you snot-nosed li't
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 2:01pm.
Well, you snot-nosed li't whippersnapper, I hope that you cleaned her lagtop very well..................and you're lucky it IS Father's Day, or you'd be payin' (Obamaspeak) some heavier dues!!!!
Yep....just like Chris
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:56am.
Yep....just like Chris Matthews (IIRC it was him), out of the blue, (cough, cough) bringing up contraception in the debates.
Same thing happened with
Submitted by ant on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:57pm.
Same thing happened with George Snuffalupogous and the GOP debates when 'contraception' was brought up before Obama's "Screw your Catholic sensibilities" mandate. I wonder how long it will be until Pelosi wheels out her illegal alien Mexican version of Sandra Fluke? Sandrina Flukez?...
Obama never does anything to
Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:26am.
Obama never does anything to benefit the country, just himself and his party.
I too noticed the newspapers, the Spanish language paper here in L.A. on Thursday ran a front page story on how "immigrants" are the engine of Capitalism. The headline was enough to make my blood boil but more than that, it was a clear sign that a leak was in progress and that Obama was going to do something about the illegals. So it wasn't just the NYTs and Time magazine...
Oh, please.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:04am.
front page story on how"immigrants" are the engine of Capitalism.
That's right up there in the propaganda list with "Our strength is in our diversity."
As if varied ethnicity of employees is what makes a business successful.
Exactly.
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:27am.
Exactly.
Of course they leaked it.
Submitted by celator on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:31am.
Of course they leaked it. Good grief, Jay Carney is the official TIME magazine White House spokesbabbler. It would have been far more unusual if the WH hadn't leaked the story to the "Let's Re-elect Obama" MSM.
Which "Jay Carney"....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:47am.
...are you speaking of? I know three "Jay Carneys".
Oh, and those DOJ memos which mentioned "Fast and Furious" did not refer to "Fast and Furious"...
Yea, the "Jay Carneys" seem
Submitted by celator on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:45pm.
Yea, the "Jay Carneys" seem to keep hatching over there by that rock on the edge of the swamp. He's as much a misanthrope as his boss, and as much a stranger to truth and clarity as said boss. Both have difficulty with plain English, which is apparently their second language, their first language being political bravo sierra.
I think celator meant the Jay
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:59pm.
I think celator meant the Jay Carney who also moonlights as Lt. Fuzz in the Beetle Bailey comic strip.
This is funny. I take it was
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:04am.
This is funny. I take it was fine when the NY Times was running stories and editorials in favor of the Iraq War using leaked information, which was then supported by the Bush Administration as reasons for why we needed to go to war? And I guess it was the same state run media when, after learning that the Bush Administration was spying on American citizen's without judicial oversight, promptly sat on the story for a year at the administration's request?
Of course, no one here was outraged then; but you're outraged now...
Your full of crap
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:15am.
Niether scenario existed. In-fact I doubt you can find any situation where the press cooperated with the Bush admin
No good morning for you twistorian
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:35am.
Quoting that great patriot Joe Wilson, "YOU LIE".
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Clearly. http://www.rawstor
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:44am.
Clearly.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html
Oh and part
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:50am.
Oh and part 2:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm
Key line:
"More than a year after the interdiction, on September 8, 2002, the New York Times reported that “American officials” believed that the tubes were meant for use in centrifuges. (Note 11) The report was based on documents deliberately leaked by the White House. Cheney, Powell, and Condoleezza Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows the same day to draw attention to the report. Rice said that the tubes were only suitable for nuclear weapons programs, and warned, most famously, “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Do you have any info that hasnt been debunked yet
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:58am.
? You need to carry this garbage back to kos
Please, debunk away.
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:24pm.
Please, debunk away.
YOU LIE
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:00pm.
You quote a lying liberal phony news site that quotes the lying American Pravda (New York Times) to support your lies. Great work to help Obabble change America into the Union of American Socialist Republics
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
So let me get this straight:
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:16pm.
So let me get this straight: Newsbusters is complaining that the NY Times is "state run" media for the Obama admin based on Fox News program that cited absolutely no sources.
I turn around and point out that the NY Times has helped a Republican administration, and I am called a liar. So I back up my claims with sources, including the very organization that admitted to helping the Bush admin, but they're called a liars too. That's a helluvan argument you've got there...
We have differebt definitions of truth
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:30pm.
I define truth as: the state of being the case, the body of real things,events, and facts. You define truth as; whatever you say the truth is.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Pulled directly from the
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:56pm.
Pulled directly from the article that exposed the whole wiretapping business:
"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5094&en=c7596fe0d4798785&hp=&ex=1134795600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1134761269-mxcSeDiGSTORqrApCvAEQg
Not sure how subjective you think that is; that basically says "We wanted to publish this article, the Bush admin didn't, so we met them halfway". But I guess you're right: this never happened.
You're still quoting Pravda America
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:54pm.
You're still quoting Pravda America, the main source of lies by socialist "reporters.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
That so? Who within the Bush
Submitted by krendler on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:12pm.
That so? Who within the Bush administration leaked this information and, if that was the case, why was there no investigation?
And I'm sure the info was leaked specifically for the purpose of bolstering Bush's "hawkishness", with a presidential election months away?
LOL. Got anything else?
Go back on over to HuffPo, moron.
I don't know. Probably
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:21pm.
I don't know. Probably because back then nobody really cared; perhaps these weren't seen as leaks that were detrimental, unlike what happened with the Plame case (cue the "she wasn't a covert agent line"). Just because information is being leaked doesn't always mean it warrants an investigation (see the case being made here about upcoming immigration policy being "leaked").
Two words...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:01pm.
"Probably because back then nobody really cared..."
Two words: Valerie Plame. Does that right a bell?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why yes it does. That's why I
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:08pm.
Why yes it does. That's why I mentioned it in the statement to which you replied.
LOL. Cue the "she wasn't a
Submitted by krendler on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:54pm.
LOL. Cue the "she wasn't a covert agent line"? Not even necessary.
How 'bout if I cue the two words that liberals avoid at ALL costs when discussing the Plame case (two words that weren't uttered for a full day of "hearings" headed by Waxman until a conservative finally had his turn at the mic):
Dick Armitage.
Sorry, all politics aside, liberals are simply idiots. Can't think straight. All emotion. Zero reason. Zero logic.
Why the assumption?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:58pm.
"I take it was fine when the NY Times was running stories and editorials in favor of the Iraq War using leaked information, which was then supported by the Bush Administration as reasons for why we needed to go to war?"
What makes you say that? I haven't seen anyone here argue that it was ok.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well that's my point: you
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:15pm.
Well that's my point: you won't see anyone complain about that because that would refute the point that the media never worked with the Bush administration. Case in point, here's Noel complaining about the wiretapping story that the NY Time broke after sitting on it for a year:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2005/12/19/how-new-york-times-stole-christmas
Interestingly, he links to the article, but never mentions that the NY Times sat on it for the Bush Admin. But he sure did complain about the timing, about how it was timed before crucial votes, or just about the fact that the story exists.
Oh, I get it
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:29pm.
Oh, I get it, you're just offering an hypothesis. The lack of supporting evidence proves, to you anyways, that your hypothesis is correct. .
"Interestingly, he links to the article, but never mentions that the NY Times sat on it for the Bush Admin."
Has it occurred to you that, at the time, no one, not you, not I, not even Noel, knew that the Times "sat on" this story for a year? You're accusing Noel of hypocrisy because he didn't mention something that no one was aware of at that time. Does that sound reasonable to you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well. Considering that Noel
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:38pm.
Well. Considering that Noel put a link into the NY Times story that I just linked above, which specifically stated that the NY Times did sit on it for a year, then yes, I would say he did know. In fact, it's stated very clearly, in the first page of the story to which Noel links, that they did so deliberately. So are you saying that no one read it, they just complained about it?
Ok, now you lost me
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:52pm.
Noel complained about a leak article, but, because he didn't mentioned that the leak occurred previously, which is irrelevant, by the way, as he included a link to the article itself, he's now a hypocrite because he's complaining today about more leaks in a different administration? I don't see how that works.
I know you don't like Noel, but, please until you actually have some evidence, ANY EVIDENCE, that Noel, or anyone else here, for that matter, actually supported the Bush leaks, other than something he didn't mention, didn't say, I would appreciate it if you stopped insinuating that Noel is a hypocrite. A lack of supporting evidence isn't proof, it's conjecture.
I wonder if you even know the difference between conjecture and evidence?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Oh, and by the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:56pm.
Oh, and by the way, It looks like Noel is correct. The New York Times really is a state run media. Even you must agree, for, as you pointed out, they sat on a leak for a year at the behest of the Bush administration, correct?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If it's the right thing to do.....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:07am.
why didn't he do it before now?
Rhetorical questions for $200, Alex.
It's time to impeach this Kenyan communist b@$t@rd from Hell
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:15am.
Seriously, I have had more than enough of this goober-cheese screwing up my America.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Grennell seemed to have some moves
Submitted by StarAZ on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:39am.
I have no idea who this is--but he can replace blithering/giggling Miller any day!
Yawn...everyone knows this already
Submitted by gopcongress on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:54am.
Boring story. Everyone knows that Obama Admin / Mainstream Media are one and the same. Nothing to see here, move along now...
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
No longer the "Mainstream Media." This is State-run Media
Submitted by krendler on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:04pm.
Staggering.
And did anyone catch this morning's MTP. As always, it was 4 liberals (5, if you count Gregory) versus one conservative (WSJ Stossel) on the panel, with Gregory, per usual, wanting to move on quickly when the conservative tries to chime in with a great point. And, of course, Gregory fawning over Doris Kerns-Goodwin.
A hysterical portion was when Stossel (very articulate) was just ripping the Obama campaign's tactic of pandering to this and that demographic (Hispanics, gays, students) instead of articulating any kind of vision for America. While she's talking, there's a quick reaction shot of three liberals looking at her - Kerns-Goodwin included - with looks of utter contempt on their faces. Of course, Goodwin is all smiles when it's another liberal slamming Romney for being successful or something.
Absolutely sickening. It's like Obama gets a free, one-hour campaign ad every Sunday.
MTP
Submitted by StarAZ on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:33pm.
I was just going to watch the recording, FF in hand. Yeah, good old Doris is quite the favorite--still trying for relevance. I like Stossel sometimes--although he is also a highly paid guy telling people to suck it up--which can gripe me if I am feeling particularly broke. Even with the warning, I may give it a try. Cavuto THE SUCKUP? Took him off my DVR list last nite.
In case you are interested--the usual "You're a Nazi, no, you are" people are at it at the WaPo this am.
Sad but expected
Submitted by Rasmus on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:26pm.
The Ministry of Propaganda in action, nothing surprising here. Now that the mainstream media has given up trying to hide that they are nothing but an arm of the Obama administration, it should be ignored by all intelligent people.
Pravda by any other name...
Submitted by nanoflex on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 1:25pm.
There is an unhealthy symbiosis which has grown between the national media and Progressives.
This has eroded trust and accountability in both.
They have reached the point where credibility has gone.
The citizens of the United States no longer have guardians in the Fourth Estate.
Is your heart pounding, palms sweating, dizzy from the "spin"?
Submitted by gailannr on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 3:55pm.
I gotta think people are starting to feel the panic welling up inside of them. All of Congress must be starting to feel like they might throw up! Come on Congress do your job! Have some guts! Maybe we should have the Navy Seals and a few other military personnel sit in for you until the unforeseeable future is clear! As in, "will there still be an America?" Just a reminder from the Oath Keepers:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing New
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 8:13am.
Nothing new here, he has always given the edge to the propaganda media.
They are bought and paid for by the liberal agenda and the Obama administration. They would not be able to spin the idiots ideas if they did not have a warning in time to find the spin.
Besides it is only the NYT's and Newsweek what is the combined readership 300 maybe 350? They quit being news organizations decades ago, they merely provide the public relations service for the administration.
"Obama's White House"
Submitted by texasborngranny on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 1:45pm.
has so many leaks, it should be referred to as The Colander....