The New York Times' Obama Slant

National Review Online: The Most Telling Defender Of The New York Times Is The Obama Campaign

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Jonah Goldberg.

Shortly before John McCain suspended his campaign to help with the Wall Street bailout, his generals declared war on The New York Times.

In a conference call this week, McCain senior aide Steven Schmidt bellowed: “Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day impugns the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. (Sarah) Palin. ... Everything that is read in The New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective.”

Strong stuff. And, to be fair, not exactly accurate. Biased or not, The New York Times is, of course, a “journalistic organization.” There are many rooms in the mansion of journalism, and being fair or even-handed is not what makes journalism journalistic. In Europe, virtually all of the major papers are more ideologically biased than the Times, and I say that as someone whose father taught me to distrust the Times the way some Irishmen once taught their kids to distrust the English.

But to admit that Schmidt exaggerates his case is not to say that the truth isn’t on his side. You can’t exaggerate a lie.

One good test of how the Times has been covering the race is to see who is defending it. Liberal pro-Obama columnist E.J. Dionne protested the McCain attack as an attempt to “intimidate reporters and discredit those who try to give an honest account of the campaign.”

New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen lamented on a left-leaning media site that if the McCain campaign thinks the Times is a “political action committee working for Obama . . . then why does the Times have to treat the McCain crew as a ‘normal’ campaign organization, rather than a bunch of rogue operators willing to say absolutely anything to gain power and lie to the nation once in office?”

The answer should be obvious: The New York Times doesn’t owe fairness to McCain; it owes accuracy to its readers. Fairness to McCain would simply be a happy byproduct of that accuracy.

But the most telling defender of the Times was the Obama campaign itself, which leapt to vouch for the Gray Lady’s probing investigative integrity. (Note: this is the same campaign that implored the Justice Department to shut down anti-Obama ads it didn’t like and encouraged supporters to harass and shout down journalists - including my National Review colleagues David Fredosso and Stanley Kurtz - who’ve tried to investigate Obama’s record with a gusto not to be found at America’s “paper of record.”)

According to Politico, Obama spokesman Bill Burton called Schmidt’s attack on the Times “laughable.” Burton released a list of 42 “probing stories” from the Times. Among these allegedly hard-hitting exposés were the following headlines: “In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice,” “Charisma and a Search for Self in Obama’s Hawaii Childhood” and “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd.”

It’s amazing the Obama campaign survived such an onslaught.

Meanwhile, the Times ran a scurrilous, unsubstantiated story suggesting McCain had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a lobbyist. Its coverage of Palin has been so heinous, Times readers could be forgiven for thinking the Alaska governor is a transvestite in a Klan robe who speaks in tongues.

The New York Times is clearly rooting for Barack Obama (just as it was rooting for McCain against Bush in 2000). As Kurtz has demonstrated, the Times has soft-pedaled Obama’s ties to William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose former outfit, The Weathermen, bombed the Pentagon and other American targets.

Times editorials read like Obama press releases. On McCain’s controversial ad criticizing Obama’s vote for a sex-ed bill in the Illinois legislature, the Times proclaimed that McCain “flat-out lies” and argued that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” A plain reading of the actual bill shows that the Times is flat-out lying.

Attacking the press serves several purposes, not least of which is that it just feels good. It also galvanizes the base and informs swing voters to be more skeptical of what the press tells them. Of course, such griping can backfire, causing the press to become even more hostile, though it’s hard to imagine what that would look like. But a good hard smack on the nose can offer some rewards.

For instance, during the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the Times refused to report that Obama’s mentor and pastor had ever said “God damn America,” even though that exclamation was central to the firestorm. But the day after the McCain campaign declared war on the Times, the quote appeared on the front page, six months late and in a story about McCain’s negative campaigning. Such are the meager spoils of war.

[tcrowley111]

I don''t know whether the NY Times is biased, I do know that NR is - that is why I tired of it and canceled my subscription.

If there were a Warren Buffett for news analysis, and he said the NY Times, I might believe him. but NR? never!

tom from guam

[tcrowley111]

I don''t know whether the NY Times is biased - I do know that the NR is - so that disqualifies them as a source of reliable opinion.

If there was a Warren Buffett for news analysis, and he said the NY Times was biased, I might believe him. But the NR? Never!

tom from guam

[tcrowley111]

I don''t know whether the NY Times is biased - I surely know that the National Review is. that''s why I tired of it and canceled my subscription.

if there was an equivalent of Warren Buffett in news analysis, and he said the NY Times was biased, then I would tend to believe him. But the NR? never!

tom from guam

[caldwellptr]

IF only I knew how to READ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the Times initial decision to not publish Jerimiah Wright''s inflammatory words. Pastor''s words have no place in a Presidential election. That also applies to Gov. Palin''s pastor who appears to be a witch hunter and Hagee''s words which shows him to be a Jew hater.

For a solid month, the MSM focused on a 30 second clip from a pastor while utterly failing to show the candidate''s own record. Now we are 40 days from a critical choice and voters are only slightly better informed.

McCain''s extra-marital sexual relationship is certainly more relevant first because he and his party made such a big deal about Clinton''s affair and second because American''s do expect their Presidents to respect marital traditions.

But even this pales in comparison to the candidate''s own record on getting things done on bread-and-butter issues. The NYT is one of the few papers that spends most of its writing on that.

[dee71082]

Why on Earth is CBS recycling the National Review''s garbage?

[xlib]

You tell them blustardad, we only want one opinion, just one. We want only left wing, soros backed tadio, TV, print media. I say we take all news sources that do not fit the liberal standard (or sub standard) and burn them. Why, how dare any American hold a different point of view.
Comrades, you guys are onto something here.

[xlib]

afmca-And just what is the name of that spokesperson?? You make a statement like that you need to back it up. Then again, typical lib, throw something out there and hope it sticks.
I would like your take on the Spanish speaking ads that the messiah camp is running in 4 states stating that mccain is against immigration. Explain that one, please. Seems they forgot to mention that mccain and your guy teddy wrote a bill that was pure amnesty.
Talk about lies!

[xlib]

Ya think!!!! They should just come out with it that they are in the tank for the messiah, just like the rest of the msm and get it over with.
It''s no wonder that circulation is down and that they have had to lay people off.

[kazoodan]

WHAAAAAAAAAAA! IT''S NOT FAIR!!!

[jsuits]

And the source of this opinion? The National Review -- the most neocon rightwing extremists in print. The McCain campaign didn''t like it that the NYT was calling them on their lies and were starting to get some attention to Rick Davis (McCain''s campaign manager''s) collecting fees from Freddie Mac until August (which Rick Davis AND John McCain lied about). The McCain campaign''s strategy is to blame the press and the NYT has covered the lies promptly and comprehensively so the NRO (which repeats McCain talking points like a parrot) jumped in with this nasty piece. Me thinks they protest too much!

[stopkidding]

I hope McCain continues to run against the imagined slights of the New York Times and the ill-considered remarks of people who are not running for president. If he starts running against Obama, he might get within striking distance.

[tbuckl]

I want to vote to the person who will follow this GREAT American idea and concept and return my America to me and my fellow citizens forthwith..."We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness." Thomas Jefferson

[rational_1]

I read the NY Times on-line only, and I have never doubted that they are in the tank for Obama. After they ran the ad for MoveOn.org I ost all respect for them and read them mostly for entertainment.
Posted by paris1969 at 06:46 PM : Sep 26, 2008

I no longer line my birdcage with the Times for fear of offending my bird.

[afmca]

McCain''s own spokesman stated that their campaign was about winning not telling the truth. This is Bush / Cheney / Rove all over again. Rove believes that if you tell a lie long enough it becomes truth. That the Republican base falls for this shows their ignorance and lack of open-mindedness. The Republicans have an entire network, Fox, that spews RNC propaganda 24x7 so for McCain to complain about the NYT shows just how petty he really is.

I think George Will summed it up best .. he admitted that Obama lacks experience, but said McCain lacks temperament. He said Obama is smart enough to gain experience; but McCain is too old to change his innately nasty nature. America has had 8 years of a President lacking intelligence and openness to want to experience 4 more with McCain.

[reuelt]

NYT is biased & is a real shame.

Voter will not be fooled.
Nov 4 is day to also teach those "evil" "teacherous" media a lesson.

McCain-Palin

[geraldine14]

ChicagoRai7 is obviously has a sick, twisted, perverted mangled mind. I have asked for the offensive comments to be removed. This is obviously one of Corrupt Chicago Kid''s associates. Evil beyond words.

[ioweign]

So!!

[paris1969]

I read the NY Times on-line only, and I have never doubted that they are in the tank for Obama. After they ran the ad for MoveOn.org I ost all respect for them and read them mostly for entertainment.

[hotwitch]

ChicagoRai7, as your brethren who share your progressive ideals might say: - you need to take some anger management classes.