The Boston Globe newspaper has been sold by its owner, the New York Times Company, for $70 million in cash to investor John W. Henry. Included in the deal were the Times’s stakes in two other smaller papers, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Metro Boston, a free tabloid.
The Times had purchased the Globe company in 1993 for $1.1 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the New England Media Group operation sold for just under 4 percent of the original sale price. The all-cash deal did not include an assumption of the company’s pension debts of about $110 million which will remain with the Times Company.
As Brent Bozell hinted, The New York Times sees the president through sympathetic eyes as a political Jackie Robinson. In his latest column "Profiling Obama," former Times executive editor Bill Keller defends Obama against critics on the right and on the left who think Obama is either too black or not black enough.
Keller is gentle with liberals who are "disappointed that Obama has not made it his special mission to call out the racism that still festers in American society." But anti-Obama conservatives are deranged:
When the New York Times Magazine published an 8,000-word puff piece in April about Anthony Weiner and wife Huma Abedin, the media predictably applauded with all three broadcast networks gleefully referring to the piece to assist in the sext-crazed politician's rehabilitation.
Adding insult to injury, the article's author Jonathan Van Meter - who is a contributing editor to Vogue and New York magazine - told the Washington Post's Erik Wemple Monday, "Never even occurred to me to ask" if Weiner was still sexting.
Over the weekend, The New York Times promoted its July 24 interview with President Obama – after being shut out for almost three years – but reporters Jackie Calmes and Michael “Macaca” Shear couldn’t find time for a single question about the IRS scandal, Benghazi, or other Obama scandals. They found time to ask a softball about whether Obama would help observe the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. This could explain Obama’s last words: “Thanks, guys. Appreciate you.”
But Calmes and Shear did throw a series of hardballs about how Obama’s not getting around Republican obstructionism on the economy. In a question pushing to end the sequester, Calmes spurred Obama to talk about his passion for deficit reduction (despite the need for a laugh track, he’s not kidding):
At the White House on Thursday, President Obama let his radical leftist slip show when he accepted a 67 year-old letter from from Ho Chi Minh to U.S. President Harry Truman given to him by Vietnam's current president Truong Tan Sang and spoke of the letter's contents: "... we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States. And President Sang indicated that even if it's 67 years later, it's good that we're still making progress."
Darlene Superville at the Associated Press relayed what Obama said in the final paragraphs of her report on Sunday without a hint of historical knowledge about mass murderer Ho Chi Minh's motivations for writing that letter. Perhaps she's too young and was so consistently indoctrinated by her teachers about how the U.S. was the "imperialist" and Ho Chi Minh was the "freedom fighter" to know any better. Based on his bio, New York Times reporter Mark Landler doesn't appear to be able to claim that kind of historical ignorance, but he has definitely retained a capacity to make excuses for repressive, murderous regimes. Excerpts from his coverage and a correct rendering of the history follow the jump (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Additionally, it seems that the MSNBC crowd is on board with voter integrity laws as well. Sixty-five percent of respondents, who described themselves as "very liberal to liberal," thought that showing an ID before voting was a "good thing." So, this isn't a legitimate issue. It's only relevant in the liberal boardrooms of America's news media.
Jim Swift at Bomble.com noticed Eliot Spitzer did something amazingly sleazy with the New York Times – something the paper hasn’t noticed yet. In a new TV ad pitching himself as the scourge of Wall Street, he edited a July 9 Times subheadline to exclude that in addition to "Instant Pushback" from high finance to his bid for city comptroller, he’s also opposed by unions and politicians.
Michael M. Grynbaum of the Times did a two-minute video “ad watch” of the 60-second ad that was posted on Tuesday – and obsessed over Spitzer holding glasses in the ad, but somehow missed the blatant edit of the newspaper’s own content:
In a Tuesday evening editorial, the New York Times called for former Democratic Congressman and current New York City mayoral candidate to withdraw from the race. What the Times failed to acknowledge -- and should have -- is the critical role it has played in enabling his still-alive comeback attempt from the 2011 sexting scandal which led to his resignation.
On April 10, the Times published an 8,000-plus word item by Jonathan Van Meter which appeared in its April 14 Sunday magazine. Its only conceivable purpose was to hasten Weiner's political rehabilitation. At the time, Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters noted that it was dutifully "touted" on the NBC, CBS, and ABC morning shows. It doesn't take long during a re-read of that Times piece to arrive at several bitterly ironic passages, as will be seen after the jump.
As NewsBusters has been reporting, the Obama-loving media's gushing and fawning over the President's address Friday concerning race and the George Zimmerman verdict has been nothing less than sick-making.
Potentially the most vomitous remark yet came from New York Times columnist David Brooks who actually said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday - with a straight face, no less! - it "was a symphony" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Liberal media members earlier this week pounced on a New York Times article claiming that health insurance rates in the Empire State will decline by 50 percent when ObamaCare fully kicks in.
Will they give similar attention to Thursday's announcement from the Indiana Department of Insurance that health insurance rates in the Hoosier State will rise by an average of 72 percent as a result of the legislation?
During a report on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News on the widely panned cover of Rolling Stone magazine featuring Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a sound bite was included of New York Times media columnist David Carr defending the offensive display: "I think that Rolling Stone committed an act of journalism in both publishing this photo and publishing the story that they did." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Throughout the segment, NBC correspondent John Yang described the near-universal condemnation of the cover, but led up to Carr's commentary by declaring: "Rolling Stone has a history of serious journalism, like the story that led to the resignation of U.S. Afghanistan commander, General Stanley McChrystal. In 1970, Charles Manson appeared on Rolling Stone's cover, and other news magazines have had controversial covers, including Hitler and Osama Bin Laden on the front of Time."
On Wednesday, James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal exposed that the New York Times editorial page shamelessly changed its position on the filibuster in 2013 from nearly the exact opposite of its position during a Republican Senate majority in 2005.
“It's now clearer than ever that the Times's guiding principle is nothing other than the tactical interests of the Democratic Party,” wrote Taranto. On July 16, 2013, an unsigned Times editorial lamented that the Democrats caved in to Republicans and failed to shred the filibuster, just in case Republicans ever regain the majority (perhaps in the next election.) Harry Reid was too wimpy:
Today, as the wire service AFP reported in a story carried at Yahoo.com, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in the question and answer exchange after his prepared testimony, told the House Financial Services Committee that "If we were to tighten (monetary) policy, the economy would tank."
That assessment of the economy's fragility qualifies as news, especially given the Obama administration's continued claim that the economy is "continuing to recover at a promising rate." Outlets besides AFP virtually ignored Bernanke's soundbite, which should be considered scary to anyone who realizes that Big Ben can't go on "stimulating" at his current rate forever.
Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson tied immigration reform to the shooting of Trayvon Martin on Wednesday’s Morning Joe, claiming Republican voters oppose the Senate immigration bill because they believe “immigrants are, you know, people in hoodies.” While the inflammatory line would no doubt be well-received on a liberal network like MSNBC, it seems somewhat unbecoming of a professional political journalist.
Suffice it to say, Carlson was not called out by her fellow panelists for the hyperbolic comment. Carlson also commended Thomas Friedman’s latest op-ed in The New York Times, entitled “If Churchill Could See Us Now,” in which Friedman – who recently held up China as a paragon of greatness, so long as they don’t emulate the “American Dream” – blasted House Republicans for making this country “un-great”:
New York Times Magazine correspondent Mark Leibovich has made waves in Washington, D.C. recently with the release of This Town, his tell-all account of the “universally disliked” culture in our nation’s capital. Leibovich appeared on Tuesday’s Morning Joe to promote his controversial book, and to discuss the breakdown of Washington journalism with co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.
Leibovich suggested he wrote This Town to “hold a mirror to the culture” of the nation’s capital, and that the ultimate takeaway of his work is that “everyone fundamentally is disappointed with Washington.” But Leibovich’s history of partisanship, as documented by NewsBusters, suggests that the reporter is very much a part of the dysfunction inside the Beltway. Leibovich has a history of praising Democrats and bashing Republicans, all in a day’s work at the left-wing New York Times.
[Excerpted fromCollusion, by Brent Bozell and Tim Graham]
The media's sneakiest dirty trick in the book is bias by omission, because is is so hard to find, when journalists decide "what the people don't know won't hurt them," or more precisely, "what the people don't know won't hurt our candidate."
In Barack Obama's case this omission emerged in 2012 over his biographical narrative: his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father, which became a huge bestseller as he prepared to run for president, and enriched him with an estimated $1.3 million in royalties (not to mention almost $4 million for his campaign book The Audacity of Hope), and that's just through 2007.
Updated below | In a bizarre tweet, John Schwartz, a national reporter for the New York Times decided to attack NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard for celebrating his son’s upcoming wedding.
After Sheppard had noted how he was going to be “crying more than bride’s father...but for different reasons,” an apparently bitter Schwartz shot back with an insult: “Because you’ve been renting him out to workhouses all these years and you’re sorry to be losing the income?”
The ink on the SCOTUS ruling is barely dry, but Hollywood is already set to start celebrating the gay victory with more propaganda films. First up? HBO’s new documentary about the lawyers and gay couples who brought down Prop 8.
According to the New York Times, HBO announced this week that it is mere months away from finishing up a special documentary that will “chronicle the court battle to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage.” But the film won’t just showcase the legal battle; it will focus in on the gays involved – the “story of the couples behind the case.”
A report today from Nicole Winfield at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, headlines the news that Pope Francis's revision and update of Vatican City laws "criminalizes leaks." Meanwhile, searches on relevant terms at the AP's national web site ("leaks"; "insider threat" "McClatchy"; all not in quotes) return either nothing, or nothing relevant.
AP's apparent decision thus far to ignore McClatchy's latest story on the Obama administration's unprecedented "Insider Threat Program," which requires federal employees to snitch on each other for "suspicious behavior" or face serious discipline and even prosecution, is -- well, readers can pick their own adjectives after reading excerpts from McClatchy's latest item which follow the jump.
Following Texas state senator Wendy Davis’ failed attempts to permanently block an abortion bill in the Texas state legislature, the pro-abortion rights community has doubled-down in its rhetoric protesting any new regulations to improve the health and safety standards in abortion clinics across the nation. Abortion rights activists have reached a new level though, going beyond promoting access to abortion but actually celebrating the abortion itself.
Take, for example, an op-ed piece in the July 7th New York Times in which guest writer Beth Matusoff Merfish described how “proud” she was upon learning her mother sought an abortion when she got pregnant at the age of 20. Merfish, who describes herself as someone “determined to defend reproductive rights” was truly “proud” of her mother’s decision to abort her baby. [See video of Merfish's appearance on MSNBC below. MP3 audio here.]
How does a multi-millionaire plutocrat earn good press from the New York Times? Apparently, espousing some of the far-Left's most radical economic theories is a good start.
This morning's paper (B-1) carries an adoring profile of Warren Mosler, who reporter Annie Lowrey brands as a "card-carrying member of the 1 percent....But his prescriptions for economic policy make him sound like a warrior for the 99 percent."
Lowrey, who visited Mosler in the U.S. Virgin Islands, explains:
On Saturday, reporter Jonathan Martin wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times about Republican efforts to paint Hillary Clinton as “old news” for her potential 2016 run. Martin pondered the “striking” notion that Democrats “could run an older candidate” while Republicans “could nominate a youthful standard-bearer” in the next presidential election.
Of course, to the liberal panel on Monday’s Morning Joe – absent host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough – GOP criticism against the former secretary of state is nothing but a sexist, hypocritical attack on the victimized Clinton.
As of 9:15 p.m. (saved here for future reference), the home page at Politico had no story on developments in Egypt, even though story teases on unrelated matters from Thursday and Friday were still present. A browser search on "Egypt" within the home page came back empty. As millions protest in Egypt, some claiming in banners that "Obama Supports Terrorism, the most important story this evening is "5 messaging challenges for Obamacare."
As I noted on Friday, the final sentence in an AP report earlier that day (saved here at host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) on protests in Egypt read: "One banner depicted President Barack Obama and said, 'Obama supports terrorism.'"
I predicted with little risk of being wrong that the existence of this banner would not "survive future AP reports" -- and it hasn't, even though this and similar banners were still present in Tahrir Square on Saturday. A search at the AP's national site on "Obama supports terrorism" (not in quotes) returns nothing. Other establishment press coverage has also failed to reveal the continued presence of anti-American and anti-President Obama sentiments.
It must be nice to be an obscure Democratic state legislator when a major liberal newspaper runs a puff piece in your favor. Such was the case in a June 27 story in The New York Times highlighting the filibuster of a Texas abortion law by Democratic state senator Wendy Davis.
In total, the 18-paragraph piece read more like a campaign letter to donors than an actual news article, with the substance of the bill buried in the 16th paragraph of page A23. The Times’ Manny Fernandez described Ms. Davis’ actions as a stand that “catches the limelight.” Fernandez clearly had a soft spot for Ms. Davis, characterizing her as full of “stamina and conviction” whose “leg-numbing filibuster...gained thousands of Twitter followers in a matter of hours.”
First, they buried the lede, then they excised it completely.
An initial report yesterday at the New York Times on President Obama's speech on "climate change" at Georgetown University by Mark Landler and John M. Broder -- a report which was still up at least as late as 6 p.m. Tuesday evening, according to this story pull posted at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (go to the bottom of the article at the link), quoted "a member of a presidential science panel that has helped advise the White House on climate change" expressing his desire for a "war on coal" -- in Paragraphs 17 and 18 (HT to Ed Driscoll at PJ Media; bolds are mine):
Accuracy must not matter anymore, at least at The New York Times. The paper scoffed at accusations that one of its articles was misleading and contained blatant errors. The June 11 opinion blog by Mark Bittman promoted the work of “journalist (and mother)” Dominique Browning, implying that she was a grassroots activist and failing to note that she was employed by an environmental organization that raked in more than $16 million in 2011 alone.
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) wrote a letter to the Times pointing this out, as well as challenging Bittman’s data on the dangers of eating tuna. The Times responded by arguing that neither factual point was important.