The New York Times Tells You What to Think About the Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case
Normally I would give you the quotes and ask you where they came from. Obama administration press release? Head of the Black Panther Party? But I don’t have time for such tomfoolery, so I’ll jump straight into the appallingly slanted story:
A former Justice Department lawyer hired during the Bush administration alleged on Tuesday that the department scaled down a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year because his former colleagues do not want to protect white people’s civil rights.
. . . .
The testimony by Mr. Adams brought new attention to a case that has been used as political ammunition against the Obama administration by some conservative media outlets seeking to flip the script on portrayals of the Bush administration as having “politicized” the Justice Department.
I could stop right there, but there’s more:
In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division invoked a rarely used section of the Voting Rights Act to file a civil lawsuit alleging voter intimidation by both men, the party chairman and the party.
“Rarely used.” Just before Bush left office. Suspicious!
Never mind how blatant the intimidation was. Let’s focus on how often the law is used.
In April 2009, the division seemed to win the case by default because the New Black Panthers failed to show up in court.
Seemed to win?
The case became a cause célèbre in the conservative media world, and the Civil Rights Commission opened an investigation. The eight-member panel, which has the power to issue subpoenas and issue reports, is controlled by a six-member conservative bloc appointed during the Bush administration.
So you can discount them safely.
The Obama administration took office amid widespread allegations that the Bush administration had politicized the civil rights division.
Everyone was saying it at the water cooler!
(There are some allegations that the Obama administration has politicized the division, too. Whether they are “widespread” is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder.)
The New York Times: the Louis Vuitton of news! Accept no substitutes!
Was this labeled as anything other than opinion?
Mr. Pink (1870b4) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:22 ammmm, i would suggest a drinking game based on how many times they say “Bush Administration” but i don’t want to cause death by alcohol poisoning.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:22 amSure, now that the NYT is between public editors, the newsroom mice and their so-called editors realize that they can get away with their old nonsense without being called on it. I swear, there really is a lack of supervision at the NYT. I worked as a newspaper reporter for 21 years and the editors would never have let this slanted garbarge see print. They would have insisted on tellling the story straight without the innuendo on either side. Journalism the way it oughta be…
sam (1a8310) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:24 amThe link is interesting. Two Berkeley professors tell the NY Times they should charge for content.
Those guys should run for president !
Oh, one of them did.
How did that work out ?
About as well as the NY Times charging for content. What did they call that thing where they charged for Maureen Dowd’s column ?
Mike K (82f374) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:28 amThe New York Times is not a news organization. It’s just another mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, just with better writers.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:30 amHAHAhahahahaha…
All the news that fits the narrative, baby.
Frank Drebbin (8096f2) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:33 amis America
ColonelHaiku (9cf017) — 7/7/2010 @ 7:37 amunder attack by the two
silly Savages
Who ya gonna believe, the NY Times or your lyin’ eyes?
The only way the case for voter intimidation could possibly be made more clear is video of Mother Teresa being beaten down in the doorway to the voting booth. And, we could count on the NY Slimes to tell us she had it coming.
ropelight (eaba1d) — 7/7/2010 @ 8:00 amBringing their media allies into the fray means the Administration is worried. The reporter who covered the hearing at Pajamas Media did mot mention anybody from the Times being at the hearing if I recall, so Savage’s article is all second hand reportage. Nicely done.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 7/7/2010 @ 8:05 amMr. Pink,
right it is in the US section, so obviously it is intended as opinion like everything in the US section. it would make sense to confuse this with a news report instead of an editorial if it were in the news section of the paper, if only the NY Times had a news section. click over to the link and check out the US section of the NYTimes, read a few
max (2f2a28) — 7/7/2010 @ 8:53 ameditorialsarticles there and ask yourself how anyone could think the NYTimes was anything but a partisan rag, they don’t even make a pretense of being objective most of the time.Did the New York Times article mention that one of the NBPP members (Jerry Jackson) named in the DOJ lawsuit was also an official in the Democrat Party and was employed as a “poll watcher” by the Dems?
Did the NYT article mention that NBPP thugs have been employed as “security” by Democrat members of Congress?
The NBPP and the Democrats are joined at the hip.
But, it appears that the NYT doesn’t like to talk about it too much.
NYT: all lefty propaganda, all the time.
Dave Surls (ed9ab0) — 7/7/2010 @ 10:01 amI thought Smiffa’s bully-boys were NOI, not NBPP…
Frank Drebbin (8096f2) — 7/7/2010 @ 10:51 ammike
> What did they call that thing where they charged for Maureen Dowd’s column ?
Well, one wag called it “The Firewall of Sanity.”
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/7/2010 @ 10:57 amTimes Select, if memory serves.
ropelight (eaba1d) — 7/7/2010 @ 11:13 amYes, it was appropriate, in that discerning readers would never select those writers for their library.
AD - RtR/OS! (568b48) — 7/7/2010 @ 11:19 amIn the junk mail today, something from the NYT offering their “Weekender” version–Friday through Sunday or something of that sort.
I buy the local Sunday paper to get the coupons. If it wasn’t for those, I would have no use for it. The weekly TV listings, I suppose, although I never actually end up watching TV and there’s always TV Guide….
So, unless the NYT has some super duper collection of grocery coupons, why would I want it?
kishnevi (fb9343) — 7/7/2010 @ 11:44 amkish
i haven’t picked up an actual newspaper in years. i think i might have picked one up in 2002, but other than that, i liteally don’t think i have this entire century.
and i haven’t paid for a paper for even longer.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/7/2010 @ 11:48 amYou can get better coupons and TV listings off the internet. Classifieds too.
Oh yeah, and news is better online too. I remember that Daily Show reporter asking the NYT editor to point to anything in that day’s paper that ‘happened today?’.
I do get a free one on my driveway that I think is for streak free windex wiping.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/7/2010 @ 11:52 amDustin
Well, newspaper have their uses. for instance, once i was in the woods and i ran out of TP. Thank God a comrade brought a copy of the LA Times…
yeah, i am joking, but not by much, and i figured Patterico might uniquely enjoy that joke.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/7/2010 @ 12:05 pmTo be fair to the NY Times, if they don’t tell their audience what to think there could be a problem aka less support for Democrats. Obama and the Democrats’ policies aren’t going to sell themselves for goodness sake!
East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 7/7/2010 @ 12:17 pmWe still subscribe to their Sunday edition (I started subscribing decades ago), but now only for my wife, who still likes it…somewhat. But we never pay anything other than firesale prices now – when our special 36 – week rate of $2.00/issue runs out, we just wait around three weeks until they come crawling back and give us the same deal, over and over. Their desperation is quite clear and hilarious.
Dmac (93e7cb) — 7/7/2010 @ 12:20 pmDustin–
the supermarket I use doesn’t take Internet coupons. Or didn’t a while ago. I’ll have to check on their current policy. Something about too much fraud–apparently sites were offering non-legit coupons.
I get all my news from blogs like this one, or AP reports that show up when I check my Yahoo mail. Invariably I find that what I read online, from either source, on Saturday shows up in the Sunday paper–usually the same exact reports, not even updated.
kishnevi (8627e9) — 7/7/2010 @ 1:08 pmkishnevi,
The non-legit coupons are the best ones, man. Find a dumber supermarket.
/Photoshop FTW
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/7/2010 @ 1:17 pmThe New York Times is not a news organization. It’s just another mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, just with better writers.
I don’t know about that. I think the official Democratic Party press people would have been more subtle than this NYT piece, which reads like it was written by former employees of Pravada.
They were going to refer to the “imperialist running dogs of the Bush regime”, but that’s understood in any case by Times readers without it being spelled out.
Subotai (96a44a) — 7/8/2010 @ 8:56 am“All the news that’s fit to print”?
— All the lies that fit we print
Icy Texan (388cfa) — 7/8/2010 @ 1:24 pm— All the flies in shit we print
— All the Jooos they shoot we print
— Everyone Obama screws (over) we print
— Everything BUT the news we print
Hmm this is interesting..
NYC (58bd4e) — 7/9/2010 @ 8:31 pm