You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2009.
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.
Sarkozy already made some sarcastic comments about Obama’s naivete
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
Seriously. This rapid slideshow of 13o photos proves it
While – ironically – all the other tabloids are busy reporting a terrorist plot, NY Post is the only one noting the answer the terrorist speakers at this session got from Netanyahu
The entire speech is here
and the NY Post article is here
Brandishing blueprints of the Auschwitz death camp, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday blasted the United Nations for turning a blind eye to terrorism and urged the world leaders to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
It’s confusing when the truth comes from the NY Post…
For irony effect, the other covers
I didn’t read all the puff pieces during the W era – but just enough to remember how “the pool” was reveling in being treated with disdain – I specifically remember a certain wait in heat in Crawford and some fried chicken given to them around the pool – an actual pool, with interdiction of going in the house.
A New York Times “reporter” gets printed what the paper calls “an entertaining pool report” of the dinner of world leaders at the Phipps Conservatory (It’s kinda like TBS advertising its sitcoms with the tag line “very funny”
So, what does NY Times deem entertaining?
The real time account of the greeting of the guests includes a detailed fashion report on Obama and Michelle, plus full account of every Obama utterance, classified as “poking fun” or “teasing”. The press pool gets it twice:
Mr. Obama pokes fun at the pool, whispering something to Reggie Love and Mrs. Obama, then looking at pool and saying: “We’re talking about how you guys are all waiting to write something down.”
and then again
There’s a pause for a while between arrivals, and the First Couple turns to the pool for entertainment.
Mrs. Obama: “You guys are so quiet. Somebody should sing.”
Mr. Obama: “We should have music. Where’s the music?”
Then, “I’m teasing, Emmett, don’t freak out,” looking back at, presumably, the first Music Supplier.
Bad pool! No one started a song and dance when asked – just quiet freaking. But, hey, at least one member of the “pool” found it entertaining enough to be fit to print in the NYT.
A “pool”. It’s not just for secretaries anymore. One may wonder how many of these sycophants is missing Jr’s giving them nicknames. It was degrading, sure. But at least it was a bit more personal then the collective
“Sing for me, pool”
Someone is relishing their power over others. And there’s a spiteful tinge in that enjoyment – and in that, W’s fratboy style is still with us. And the revelation from the food channel piece ,
“We are going to screw her just like we screwed Fox News.”
is getting reinforced here. Of course, the people asked here to be court jesters are the ones in favor, the “lucky ones” who are “not getting screwed over”. Just benignly humiliated.
Ladies and gentlemen, your President is a robot. Or a wax sculpture. Maybe a cardboard cutout. All I know is no human being has a photo smile this amazingly consistent.
and they direct us to photographic evidence in 130 photos – a fast slideshow boggles the mind.