Charlie Rangel

NYT, Republican Opposition Rag

Clark Hoyt has a really curious final column summarizing his three years as the NYT’s public editor. A lot of it is self-congratulation to the NYT for even having a public editor. But I’m most fascinated by Hoyt’s rebuttal of reader claims that NYT is a “liberal rag.”

For all of my three years, I heard versions of Kevin Keller’s accusation: The Times is a “liberal rag,” pursuing a partisan agenda in its news columns.

[snip]

But if The Times were really the Fox News of the left, how could you explain the investigative reporting that brought down Eliot Spitzer, New York’s Democratic governor;derailed the election campaign of his Democratic successor, David Paterson; got Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in ethics trouble; and exposed the falsehoods that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another Democrat, was telling about his service record in the Vietnam era?

Hoyt names the Spitzer scandal, certain Paterson allegations, coverage of the Rangel scandal, and its recent Blumenthal attack as proof that the NYT is not a liberal rag.

With the exception of the Rangel coverage, these are all stories for which the source of the story is as much the issue as the story itself. Hoyt must hope we forget, for example, that Linda McMahon (Blumenthal’s opponent) boasted she fed the Blumenthal story to the NYT. Their denials that she had done so became even more unconvincing when the AP reported that the NYT hadn’t posted the full video, which undermined the NYT story.

I have no idea where the Rangel story came from (and in this case, I don’t care, because it’s clearly an important story about real abuse of power).

Then there’s Paterson. With this story, too, there’s a dispute about the NYT’s sources. Paterson says he was the NYT’s original source (they deny that too, and it’s true that this one is more likely to have been a Cuomo hit job). In any case, the NYT story fell far short of the bombshell that was promised for weeks leading up to it. Another political hit job that maybe wasn’t the story it was made out to be.

Which brings us to Eliot Spitzer. There are a number of possible sources the NYT might have relied on, starting with right wing ratfucker Roger Stone, who has bragged about being involved in that take-down. But they all, almost by definition, come down to leaks from inside a politicized DOJ. And those leaks focused not on any of the other elite Johns involved, not on the prostitution ring itself (which was, after all, exceptional only for its price tag), but on Spitzer. While I agree that Spitzer’s hypocrisy invited such a take-down, there wasn’t much legal news there, no matter how hard the press tried to invent it to justify the coverage.

But the list doesn’t end there. Elsewhere in Hoyt’s goodbye, he mentions his biggest regret–the Vicki Iseman story.

But throughout my tenure, Keller was gracious and supportive. When we had what was certainly our disagreement of greatest consequence — over the Times article suggesting that John McCain had had an extramarital affair with a young female lobbyist — Keller showed great equanimity. I said The Times had been off base. Though the story gave ammunition to critics who said the paper was biased, and it was no help to have the public editor joining thousands of readers questioning his judgment about it, Keller said mildly that we would just have to disagree on this one.

Say what you will about whether this was a worthwhile story, one with the wrong emphasis, or inappropriate scandal-mongering, it is pretty clear the Iseman part of the story came from disgruntled former Republican aides to McCain, probably in the neighborhood of John Weaver. Thus, it fits into this larger list of stories that serve not so much as proof of NYT fair-mindedness, but of its willingness to regurgitate oppo research in the service of powerful–often Republican–political opponents.

Then, finally, there’s the story that Hoyt doesn’t mention, to his significant discredit–the ACORN Pimp Hoax. Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @pwnallthethings Actually, it does. It's what rules compliance--but not reality of impact--is based on. @electrospaces is
39sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel *Even* Michael O'Hanlon... https://t.co/HUjxyJ7bxx
1mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pwnallthethings For most part, however, they're not doing stuff that affects people's privacy and is subject to govt rules @electrospaces
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pwnallthethings Go ahead and mock English profs. Hell, mock CompLit profs, if you're trying to get at jargon. @electrospaces
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Bsox327 Oh, that was @bmaz, not me. @CNN
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pwnallthethings That doesn't mean real people shouldn't mock them for redfining basic language when it serves to obfuscate @electrospaces
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @electrospaces Has the aspiration to omniscience helped those it serves make better decisions? Nope.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @electrospaces Does a system that starts w/premise of "collect it all" raise ominous implications? Yep, even with oversight and targeting
16mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @SmylyD: Congrats to @MattyMoe55 for putting in 14 months of hard work and getting back on the big league mound today! #rays
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @electrospaces Does a targeting system for adequate targeting make sense? That's not what XKS is, bc of other issues I've raised.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @electrospaces Let's start with the obvious lack of adequate oversight, then move onto the underlying overbroad targeting. Then talk tools.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @electrospaces But go ahead and parrot the jargon of spooks trying to minimize the scope of what they're doing, by all means. Mark yourself.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
July 2015
S M T W T F S
« Jun    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031