Patterico's Pontifications

9/22/2008

McCain vs the New York Times

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias — DRJ @ 6:58 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Patterico already posted on Ben Smith’s coverage of Steve Schmidt’s comments regarding the New York Times. I can’t match his humor so I’ll settle for a few extra thoughts.

First, responding to Schmidt’s comments, Obama’s national press secretary Bill Burton labeled any claim that the New York Times is in the tank for Obama as “laughable.” Burton listed 42 “probing articles” published by the New York Times as evidence that the Times has not given Obama a pass. The titles of those 42 articles are at the link but they don’t strike me as hard-hitting unless “Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama’s Hawaii Childhood” [New York Times, 3/17/07] counts as hard-hitting.

Second, the Politico’s Michael Calderone published editor Bill Keller’s response as well as Calderone’s take: That the enmity between the McCain campaign and the New York Times began with a story about McCain’s “alleged relationship” with a lobbyist — a clear reference to the Vicki Iseman story — suggesting the McCain campaign can’t take the heat of a political campaign. Naturally, Calderone neglects to mention that the New York Times’ own Public Editor believed the Times crossed the line with the Iseman article. Calderone was also confident enough in his narrative to state that Schmidt’s comments were a “a sure-fire way to drum up support among NYT-hating Republicans.”

Third, also from the Calderone link, here’s Keller’s response on behalf of the New York Times:

“The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”

Finally, here’s my translation: The McCain campaign thinks the New York Times is in the tank for Obama, while the Obama campaign thinks anything short of adulation passes for hard-hitting journalism when it comes to Obama. Meanwhile, the New York Times believes it’s untouchable.

— DRJ

16 Responses to “McCain vs the New York Times”

  1. The only thing untouchable regarding the NYT is their stock valuations – no one except foreign speculators will touch that piece of excrement without a ten – foot pole. Nice job, Pinch – excellent work, Keller!

    Dmac (e639cc)

  2. The NYT – a perfect illustration of Obama’s policy of losing revenue in support of the narrative.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  3. I’m looking forward to the Times twisting in the wind.

    Techie (6b7b9b)

  4. When SNL is ridiculing you, you know you are “over”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. Re: #3 –

    “The answer my friend, is twisting in the wind…”

    Robin Munn (98340e)

  6. I am still laughing in amazement at this Sully comment:

    “The McCain campaign apparently believes that factual questions from reporters are inadmissable. In fact, asking factual questions is obviously bias. So that’s why they won’t answer my emails…” Andrew Sullivan

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/now-they-target.html

    Could it be because Sullivan spread vicious rumors and lies about Sarah Palin’s newborn? Then Sully questioned that she is really not pro life because she got amnio? No wonder he is persona non grata with Team McCain-Palin. He is lucky Palin’s husband doesn’t kick his butt. Heck, Sarah Palin could kick his butt.

    Joe (8102a5)

  7. The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”

    What a bunch of self-serving crap!

    They don’t give their readers anything except a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and treat them like s… with their condescending attitudes and platitudes toward an informed public.

    BK will be too good for this group.

    Another Drew (1e1c13)

  8. While I have nothing but contempt for the New York Times – as it continues its descent to the status of small-time local hack-rag – I have to say I am a little tired of Right Wing whining about Media Bias. I’ve been listening/Reading this since I first became interested in politics (the mid-’70’s, when Carter was proving for the first time what an inept jackass he is), and the answer to the problem is as simple now as it was then.

    BUY SOME MEDIA OUTLETS, DAMNIT!

    The Media have ALWAYS been biased. Always WILL be biased. Bias is built into the nature of the news business, and presumably will be until and unless somebody persuades the Seraphim to take over. There were never any “Good old days” of unbiased Media, but there were days of great reporting, when each Party expected to support a local paper in every major city a part of the cost of doing business, and more than one side of each issue made it into print.

    Put out a newspaper with snappy reporting, and dictate the editorial line. Don’t whine that the (Liberal) press isn’t fair. Compete with the bastards.

    C. S. P. Schofield (2f879a)

  9. Compete with the bastards.

    And kill the narrative? Nothing rallies the base quite as efficiently.

    Covering the story about the media being in the tank for Obama benefits McCain’s cause a great deal more than covering his speech in Scranton, PA. Both campaigns are working the refs – using the media to make the news, not report it. A month ago, it was NBC’s bias that was the favorite subject (Chris and Keith were maybe “100% in the tank” for Obama, not 150). Media wars are the perfect firewall.

    steve (bfb36a)

  10. Newspapers are old media. The media bias of the networks led to talk radio in the 1980s. Which was the growth media ? Then along came the internet. What are the high value sites ? A couple are left wing and are not safe for children because of their wild obscenity. The big ones are mostly conservative or libertarian. The funny part is that the NY Times doesn’t seem to know it is dying. The LA Times has huge layoffs but still thinks it sets the agenda. I will say that the state of California is not doing much better than the Times.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  11. And kill the narrative? Nothing rallies the base quite as efficiently.

    Thanks for your unintentional honesty in admitting that this stuff is pushed not for an inherent honesty or truth to it, but because it’s great for convincing people that they’re a victimized and beseiged interest group.

    Hey, DRJ, great work cherry picking that article and not mentioning the following:

    Obama Aides Defend Bank’s Pay to Biden Son

    Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fundraising Table

    Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church

    Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke

    Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role

    Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say

    An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois

    Obama’s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008

    You’re as complicit as anyone else in this great parade of fables. An endless cascade in the blogosphere of self-justifying selectivity. There’s always a stack of headlines like this for every percieved example of ‘media bias’, but you don’t get a blog readership from vindictive conservatives being fair to the MSM!

    The truth is that organizations that try to be fair just get kicked in the shins by everyone, because they don’t suck up enough to satisfy everyone. You and your fellow travelers on the left make a living exploiting the high standards of organizations that by their nature will not do the same to you.

    glasnost (a51fd8)

  12. My question to the illiterate NYT dorks like Bill Keller–

    Sir, do you think that the New York Times gave a fair shake to the Ukrainian peasants butchered by Stalin’s goons in the early 1930’s? If you respond in the affirmative, then, sir, you are a LIAR!!!

    If you think the well-known Stalinist pimp Sulzbergers were all for humanity, then how do you explain Arthur Ochs “pimp” Sulzbergers desperate defense of the Walter Duranty’s ill-earned Pulitzer prizes prominently displayed by the current New York Slimes?? If you want to come clean with the American and Ukrainian peoples Mr. Keller, then advocate that the New York Times return the illegitimate Duranty Pulitzer Prizes, either that or just destroy them, period!!!

    Mescalero (c6f79f)

  13. Both campaigns are working the refs – using the media to make the news, not report it. A month ago, it was NBC’s bias that was the favorite subject (Chris and Keith were maybe “100% in the tank” for Obama, not 150).

    Terry McAuliffe works for the McCain campaign? I did not know that. Or are you referring to Ed Rendell?

    Pablo (99243e)

  14. McAuliffe and Rendell? I thought they were just pointing out the same thing as Schmidt. Were they wrong? I’ll grant that their candidate lost, which might not augur so well for McCain. But then, their candidate was hamstrung to say the least.

    Chris (cefe13)

  15. C. S. P. Schofield —

    Don’t whine that the (Liberal) press isn’t fair. Compete with the bastards.

    — What do you think is taking place here? Pointing out the instances of slanted coverage — documenting it — is not the same as ‘whining’ about it.

    Icy Truth (171310)

  16. The NEW YORK SLIMES is your usial left-wing news rag who mourned when castro stepped down

    Krazy Kagu (85a826)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2678 secs.