Radio host and blogger Brian Maloney has an excellent takedown of liberal bloggers who accused Bill O'Reilly of recently lying about the New York Times's coverage of the JFK Airport terror plot.
Below is the relevant excerpt from Maloney's blog, "Radio Equalizer," portions in bold are my emphasis:
After Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other hosts lambasted the Sunday
New York Times for burying news of the JFK terror plot bust, Think
Progress, News Hounds and other lefties accused them of lying.
claiming the story actually was covered on page one and even asserting
that O'Reilly intentionally misled viewers by showing only the top part
of the page on camera, these smear sites were truly pulling a fast one.
While Limbaugh said JFK terrorism plot coverage was found on page A30, O'Reilly says he found it on A37.
real problem is that O'Reilly isn't lying and neither was Rush. In the
"evidence" provided by Think Progress, they point to a tiny, one
paragraph teaser found in the right sidebar.
Not in a million years would that qualify as front page coverage!
In fact, two Think Progress commenters were quick to bust them:
don’t call me a troll or a Republican for this but, he is right - the
article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference
to the story on the interior page (metro section).
I receive the
print version of the Times. I remember thinking, that’s good - they’ve
put this on page 37 instead of on the front page, because, if previous
terror scares are any indication, within 48 hours this will have been
downgraded from “the end of the world” to “cheesy”.
Think Progress can do better, and 99 percent of the time does.
Comment by eddy tompkins — June 5, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
not a fan of O’Really or Faux, but from the picture given us of below
the fold I cannot make out much of a headline or whether the story is
“covered” on the front page.
Comment by leftcoast — June 5, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
there, it gets worse: even the New York Times admits it buried the
story! But it does have an excuse, though it seems weak. This is from a
reader Q & A with National Editor Suzanne Daley:
A. Here's the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since
9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now
seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all
plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that
J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out
plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is
with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not
put this story on the front page.
In truth, the decision was
widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting
this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the
story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should
have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply
because it was what everyone was talking about.
Of course, overhyped and downright false accusations against
O'Reilly by leftists are hardly unprecedented. On December 2, 2006,
NewsBusters noted that the night before, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called
the Fox News host a "holy you-know-what liar" who didn't predict the
need for martial law in Iraq on April 9, 2003, like he had claimed.
turns out that O'Reilly's "lie" was just a calendar error. The
predictions in question were made on the April 11, 2003 "O'Reilly
Factor," two days after the April 9, 2003 program O'Reilly mentioned on his "The Radio Factor" program.