Click here to add text
Click here to add text
Click here to add text
Click here to add text

When the ACORN shenanigans started making page one of tabloids I noted the absence of the rest of the media. New  York Times was silent when the DA probe begun.

And today, we get the mea culpa

The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

After the excuses of “not watching Fox”, listening to talk radio” are exhausted – they make me think: Are NY Times reporters even living in NYC? Can they walk on the street without seeing the huge headlines in NY Post? Or how about this one: do they own computers?

The funniest explanation quoted in the article – attributed to a reader is this one:

Readers noticed. James Jeff Crocket of New Britain, Conn., spoke for many when he said he was sure he knew why the paper was silent: “protecting the progressive movement.”

Which movement would that be? The one that demanded Bush’s impeachment for torture and war? The one protesting against the war that the New York Times was covering for with phony WMD stories?

I am sure the reader was referring to a highly biased story NY Times had published on ACORN and described in the article as

The Times took note of the controversy, under the headline, “Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe.” The article said that conservatives hoped to weaken the Obama administration by attacking its allies and appointees they viewed as leftist.

While the article is indeed biased and directed against the conservatives, I fail to see the “protection of the progressives”. What the description itself reveals is what NY Times has been doing consistently for the past 2-3 years: protecting Obama by attacking whomever happened to oppose him: Hillary Clinton, women, working class, voters, John McCain, conservatives and of course, those on the left wanting to fight for their rights.

So, quoting a conservative reader on “defending progressives” might have sounded nice to the NY Times ombudsman. The first question it raises would be: “What progressives?”

And the second: Do you equate Obama with a progressive movement? Because, while it may be true that he had hijacked it for his political ambitions, he completely ditched it since the first bailout and defense of spying on citizens.

So, I’ll answer the question myself: The NY Times defends the same interests they defended  since forever. The ones that wanted Clinton stopped, Bush instead of Gore, wars, no real primaries, no Bush accountability, no single payer insurance, no real rights for women, gays etc.

In short, today – the New York Times defends Obama. Once Obama let go of ACORN, NY Times finally deemed it fit to print. And apology. Not unlike that other apology – about covering the drumbeat to war in Iraq.



About these ads