Bloggers and their readers have "joked" about the New York Times being the official house organ of the Obama White House. Maybe it's not a joke.
Earlier this month (as seen at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), several bloggers caught the Times making significant changes to its initial coverage of Chicago's humiliating loss of its bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, and of President Obama's involvement in that loss. The first Times report by Peter Baker was fairly harsh, questioning the President's judgment in getting involved, while citing his slipping poll ratings.
After Times organ grinder -- er, reporter -- Jeff Zeleny got a hold of the story, most of the harshness went away, as did Baker's original story. All of a sudden, at the same URL, there was no reference to tarnished presidential prestige. A dismissive assertion that the embarrassment "would fade in a news cycle or two" appeared. There was also a mention of Obama's 25-minute meeting with Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal that was not in the original. The reference to falling poll numbers also disappeared.
Well, the Times has just pulled a similar stunt in its coverage of President Obama's Wednesday night/Thursday morning visit to Dover Air Force Base. Once again, Jeff Zeleny is involved.
Here's a screen grab from Ed Morrissey's 10:12 a.m. yesterday post that described the details (top portion of NYT's search result page originally shown at Hot Air was omitted to conserve space; the Times's revisions were originally noticed by Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and NiceDeb at her place):
Actually, Morrissey caught the Times in mid-scrub. A search on the same words (in quotes, to filter out articles containing some of the words) now comes up empty. How convenient.
For those who think the title of Morrissey's post is unfair, I would suggest that the more important matters to pursue are, first, why the Times seems to be making a habit of scrubbing instead of preserving original on-the-scene reports, and second, why it appears to feel compelled to clean them up, almost invariably to make Obama and his administration look better.
In a real sense, it matters little whether the ultimate cause of these memory-hole treatments is actual White House pressure, a perceived need to stay on the administration's good side to retain access, or simply a bunch of apparatchiks like Jeff Zeleny voluntarily carrying out what they think is their duty to present Dear Leader in the best possible light. The result is the same: slanted, biased, prettified pseudo-journalism.
If the Times is concerned about why its daily circulation is over 7% below that of a year ago and has dropped to 923,000 from 1.038 million just two years ago, it could start by asking itself how throwing away first drafts of history can possibly be considered legitimate.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I don't like it.
October 31, 2009 - 04:16 ET by JWFIt does not sit right with me. Seeing Obama do a slow salute. Presidents are civilians, not military, not in uniform. Presidents should not be saluting.
Then there is the idea of the Press being along for the ride. A few years ago, taking pictures of the returning caskets were forbidden. Now, we have a President inviting the Press to show how moved and touched he can be. The President of the United States is inviting the Press to take pictures of the our returning fallen military men.
You want me to be inpressed. Do something that honors your office without bringing along the photographers.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Todays
October 31, 2009 - 04:51 ET by DragonsbreathDay by Day cartoon shows it quiet well...
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
"1/20/2013 The end of a Error"
I wish this was in my paper
October 31, 2009 - 08:36 ET by Radical1979I wish this was in my paper instead of Doonsberry.
Presidents Salute
October 31, 2009 - 05:49 ET by Dim BulbPresidents are civilians, not military, not in uniform.
I found the event disgracful, but the President is Commander-in-chief of the military and can salute. If I'm not mistaken, military protocol demands that he do so when appropriate. From Wikipedia:
"Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the United States armed forces as commander-in-chief.
While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress,
the President commands and directs the military and is responsible for
planning military strategy. The framers of the Constitution took care
to limit the President's powers regarding the military; Alexander Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 69:
Congress, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution,
must authorize any troop deployments more than 60 days in length.
Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power
through its control over military spending and regulation."
Sorry sir. Gonna differ.
October 31, 2009 - 06:01 ET by JWFThe President is an elected civilian leader. Yes. Commander in Chief. So he resides in both worlds. The kicker is, he does not wear a uniform. The military does not wear uniforms 24x7. We do have occasion to stand down our dress and pop into civies.
And we do not salute in civilian clothes no matter what uniformed person we run into.
As to the powers part, yes we know. A little overkill there. No argument from us.
Also, President Reagan started the whole business with Presidents returning salutes. Presidents prior to R.R did not salute.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Don't Presidents salute the
October 31, 2009 - 06:29 ET by motherbeltDon't Presidents salute the Marine standing at Marine One when he arrives at the 'copter?
He is returning a salute.
October 31, 2009 - 06:40 ET by JWFLower rank salutes upper rank.
Not really mb
October 31, 2009 - 10:00 ET by BlondeHe kind of waves at the marine, then he scared the poor kid half to death by shaking his hand!
I hope he fails, too.
Didn't Bill Clinton
October 31, 2009 - 06:35 ET by Jack BauerDidn't Bill Clinton discontinue the tradition of the President saluting his military?
I mean, he sort of waved his hand in a airy fashion, but salute? No way.
I believe initially he did not.
October 31, 2009 - 06:41 ET by JWFBut then he started to get some grief about it and started saluting also.
Thanks for the info. I
October 31, 2009 - 06:47 ET by Dim BulbThanks for the info. I found this quote from President Reagan about the practice:
I never ceased to enjoy reviewing our men and women in uniform
and hope I started a new tradition for presidents. As commander in
chief, I discovered it was customary for our uniformed men and women to
salute whenever they saw me. When I'd walk down the steps of a
helicopter, for example, there was always a Marine waiting there to
salute me. I was told presidents weren't supposed to return salutes, so
I didn't, but this made me feel a little uncomfortable. Normally, a
person offering a salute waits until it is returned, then brings down
his hand. Sometimes, I realized, the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman
giving me a salute wasn't sure when he was supposed to lower his hand.
Initially, I nodded and smiled and said hello and thought maybe that
would bring down the hand, but usually it didn't. Finally, one night
when Nancy and I were attending a concert at the Marine Corps
headquarters, I told the Commandant of Marines, "I know it's customary
for the president to receive these salutes, but I was once an officer
and realize that you're not supposed to salute when you're in civilian
clothes. I think there ought to be a regulation that the president
could return a salute inasmuch as he is commander in chief and civilian
clothes are his uniform." "Well, if you did return a salute," the
general said, "I don't think anyone would say anything to you about
it."
The next time I got a salute, I saluted back. A big grin
came over the Marine's face and down came his hand. From then on, I
always returned salutes. When George Bush followed me into the White
House, I encouraged him to keep up the tradition.
I found some claiming that JFK saluted on occasion. Perhaps this was a reflex action.
Why is it I can read Ronald Reagan's words and smile.
October 31, 2009 - 06:59 ET by JWFThank you for digging that up sir.
Reagan did serve, and his
October 31, 2009 - 07:31 ET by FranksamReagan did serve, and his salutes were intended to show respect. Obama does nothing without considering his self-interest. He has taken 'slick' to a new level.
Whenever I run into a uniformed military person these days, I extend my hand and say "Thank you for your service." It never fails to please both them and me, although many of them are so modest. I encourage all to do the same.
Obama does nothing
October 31, 2009 - 07:39 ET by Jack BauerThat's also the nagging thought at the back of my mind.
There's seems to be no evidence of him showing any respect for the military, prior to him entering national politics. Rather like his charitable giving.
I'd like to be charitable, but look at his extreme marxist mentors; the people with whom he chose to surround himself. In college. In community organizing, et al.
All these people have a visceral hatred of the US military (but they love Che Guevera, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, of course), so there's no doubt in my mind this rubbed off on the dear leader.
Taking Slick
October 31, 2009 - 09:36 ET by boomerconObama taking "slick" to a new level just instantly brings to mind the word "slime". Seems more appropriate for him.
I checked some on the internet.
October 31, 2009 - 04:51 ET by JWFI am not the only one that did not have this sit right.
The bold pursuit: However, what I find inexcusable is using such a serious moment – a soldier’s final return to his family and nation – for a photo op, mainstream media accolades and adoration and public relations maneuvers. Real leaders don’t stage-manage their images at the expense of our fallen warriors and their families.
Mudville Gazette: It should have been a "good" day for the project; "This week alone, about two dozen soldiers have died in attacks and accidents." But while the remains of 15 soldiers and three federal agents arrived at Dover while the president was there, only one family elected to participate:
A Gold Star Mom has a nice piece.
Elizabeth Cheney: I don't know why he went to Dover. I mean, I think that clearly, it is very important for our Commander in Chief, whenever he can and whatever way possible, to pay tribute to our fallen soldiers, our fallen military folks. But I think that what President Bush used to do is do it without the cameras. And I don’t understand sort of showing up with the White House Press Pool with photographers and asking family members if you can take pictures. That’s really hard for me to get my head around. I think its an honorable and important thing for us to pay tribute. There’s no greater sacrifice people make to the nation. It was a surpsising way for the president to choose to do this. I’d like to add the most important way for the president to pay tribute to those who sacrifice is to back them up.
whizbang: He had to make amends for dithering... in the eyes of far too many... mission accomplished.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
This should be private
October 31, 2009 - 05:32 ET by 10ksnookerWe don't need no toy soldier giving a photo-op. If he was to do a tribute teleprompter seance, then fine.
Obamao is a reader, not a leader.
Liz Cheney has it dead
October 31, 2009 - 06:53 ET by motherbeltLiz Cheney has it dead on....
It was a surpsising way for the president to choose to do this. I’d
like to add the most important way for the president to pay tribute to
those who sacrifice is to back them up.. [ ].. And I don’t understand sort of showing up with the White House
Press Pool with photographers and asking family members if you can take
pictures.
This whole thing positively screams "look at me....I care...."
Which, of course, is the most important thing to liberals.
What good to go there and meet with families if no one would know about it?
Reminds me of the Pharisee in the Temple....praying loudly about how "good" he is.....
They say you can judge a
October 31, 2009 - 08:32 ET by Radical1979They say you can judge a man's character by how he behaves when no one is watching. Obama makes sure he is always being watched. I guess this means he has no character.
Ouch!
October 31, 2009 - 05:50 ET by Dim BulbOuch! That last line of the post had to hurt the grey old ho of New York.
Yes, let's throw our tax dollars at journalism to save it in the name of Obama. What could possibly go wrong?
Nope, nothing wrong here. Move along, by order of your benevolent leader's Citizen Army, protector of your hard earned money and your free press. The free press is alive and well. Hell, you can read about it in this morning's edition of Times Online! So stop criticizing The One and move along. Silence! I said. Don't make us subsidize your re-education, comrade.
Dim Bulb helped me to finally figure out what was bothering me.
October 31, 2009 - 06:20 ET by JWFThe President of the United States is initiating a salute. That is what I have never seen before. As top dog, he always returns salutes. That was what made it even weirder.
OK, that answered my
October 31, 2009 - 06:55 ET by motherbeltOK, that answered my question above, about Marine One.
And you are right....the President returns a salute.
This man is clueless in so many ways.....
And maybe it's a Freudian slip: In the military, doesn't the lower-ranking soldier salute the superior one first, as a sign of respect? So President Obama is clearly cognizant of where he stands. LOL
In this case, it is a 3 count salute to a fallen soldier.
October 31, 2009 - 07:10 ET by JWFThey will never initiate a salute. In addition to the photo op, doing this while still dithering about supporting soldier still in combat, while the press beams about how Bush never did it. It just struck the military guy inside me as another oddity seeing him salute like that.
What would not be odd is seeing a President salute a Medal of Honor recipient. Those are the guys that put their country and the lives of their fellow soldiers above their own lives. This award is posthumously given a lot. They are the only ones that get reverse salutes. A higher rank can initiate the salute.
I would give my right arm to be in a room full of those men. Oh wait, there was a room full of them last January. The Medal of Honor ball. President Obama took a pass.
Fantasic and astute
October 31, 2009 - 07:43 ET by Jack BauerFantasic and astute observation JWF.
He passed on meeting guys who have more courage in their toenails, than most of us in our entire body.
And just to dance and preen somewhere more to his taste. Says it all. And it ain't good.
Dithering - Cheney was right
October 31, 2009 - 09:52 ET by ThisnThatJWF, you mentioned dithering. Today's report in Fox News is a perfect example of how correct Cheney was a week ago when he spot-on called obama out for dithering. "Obama Requests More Options for Troop Levels". Here's how WAPO put it: President Obama grappled Friday with the costs and consequences of a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, but reached no decisions about troop levels, a top aide said.
This man simply can't make a decision that's in the best interests of the U.S. Instead, he's waiting to see how the "political" winds blow. This is something President Bush never did. Bush spent his political capital making decisions, not waffling. Obama is content to sell the nation down the river for political points.
__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song
The NYT inadvertantly
October 31, 2009 - 08:35 ET by TenebrousThe NYT inadvertantly provides the very evidence of what everyone suspected they were doing the whole time. They've won the tin toilet award for "This Week in Cluelessness".
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
Looks like the NYT is
October 31, 2009 - 08:58 ET by G. MayLooks like the NYT is already jockeying for a good seat on the Federal Bailout Gravy Train.
More Details...
October 31, 2009 - 09:06 ET by slickwillie2001Some other not-fully-reported details of the Dover photo-op: the Bamster carted up another helicopter full of press and photographers to ensure that the event would be covered adequately. Also, only one of the eighteen families involved agreed to allow their family casket to be used for the photo-op, and only fourteen of the eighteen agreed to a private meeting with the Bamster.
Ref: Propping Up The Dead: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu
That's why the TV clip of the Bamster standing by a casket was so short, because he was only allowed to do it with one of them.
This is straight out of “1984”
October 31, 2009 - 09:20 ET by needleThe New York Times – The newspaper of PHONY record
I hope somebody writes a computer program that enables the revealing of how many dozens? or hundreds? or thousands? of times The New York Times has done this sort of thing. This could be a blockbuster story, potentially the story that drives a wooden stake right through the heart of the NYT.
They (the NYT) might try to argue that they did not lie or actually alter any facts; but in doing so they unavoidably MUST admit that they are hyperactively carrying water for the Democrats, and thus disqualify themselves as being objective.
- Relying upon the New York Times for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
- I didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.
NYT Story Scrub
October 31, 2009 - 10:31 ET by throwfocusThis is straight out of “1984”October 31, 2009 - 10:20 ET by needle
----
The software should be called speak-right
Obummer makes more things UNCLEAR AGAIN
October 31, 2009 - 09:22 ET by Deskpilothttp://legion.org/national/americanflag/flagcode Sec 9 & 10
As is custom in the military, a salute is RETURNED by the senior and GIVEN by the JUNIOR, and RENDERED during the playing of the national anthem.
http://z.about.com/d/dc/1/0/W/n/parade6.jpg
In this image, he gets it right,
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/raFx3XiT1Cg/Barack+Obama+Sworn+44th+President+United+States/0U2DzhvswUN/Dick+Cheney(1 of 14) They get it right
But in Sect 10:
Is it me, or did a new rule NOT get written and proclaimed?
But I do like this part (emphasis mine):
Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A section 301 United States Code – National Anthem
What confounds me the MOST is the Obama never knows how to act in the company of the military. He acts the same way he speaks without his Tele-Promp-Ter, unknowing, unsure, and shoot from the hip guaranteeing a miss at doing the right thing.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
This
October 31, 2009 - 10:21 ET by jessieHThis is exactly why we won't put up with a bailout of the newspapers. No news, just propaganda.
We've heard this before...
October 31, 2009 - 11:43 ET by SouthernRootsGee, didn't CNN admit that this is what they did to be able to keep reporting from Sadam Hussein's Iraq?
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)
Scary!
October 31, 2009 - 10:43 ET by okiehawk44How do intelligent and generally educated folks continue to deceive themselves over and over again about Obama and his whole administration?
Is it more important that neo-leftists won the election or what they are doing with that trust derived from the people?
I am less and less certain America will have a general election in 2012.
No fooling
October 31, 2009 - 12:42 ET by retspookretspook
Nobody is really fooled by this Whie House. The first thing that hit me was what a joke Obama made of showing up on the Tarmac. We had a candidate that refused to wear The US Flag lapel pin. He was caught not saluting the Stars and Stripes and he shows concern for troops he doesn't give a shit about. I am tired of this Phoney piece of Human being trying to act like he is concerned for our troops. Impeach Him!!!!