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.
