Ahhh...how the great Grey Lady has fallen. Having fully ignored the Van Jones controversy until he was ousted, the New York Times has once again showed why the "paper of record" is full of scratches and has become totally unplayable. (BTW, the AP omits that the "derogatory" comment he called Republicans was "a--holes.")
Most recently, the expose' of the corrupt ACORN organization, long known to be the political equivalent of La Cosa Nostra, (like here, here, here, here, and here) was exposed to be a fundamentally, and systemically, scam-riddled political operation. So? Well, it's even more illegal when it's done with government money. Who did this great public service of exposing this racketeering? The Times? The Washington Post of Woodward and Bernstein fame? No, they are busy sliming the 20-something messengers. The renowned CBS 60 Minutes? Nope, too busy trying to help Obama pass health care.
Nope. A 20 year-old intern and a 25-year old self-made undercover filmmaker blew the lid off this scandal when videos were released for several days on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website showing several ACORN offices only too happy to help the pimp and his prostitute find subsidized housing and tax help for setting up there "business" of using underage illegal immigrants as sex slaves.
In the old days, when the press had at least a fig leaf of impartiality, these two would be heralded as heroes of journalism and get at least some buzz for possible Pulitzer prizes. As a side note, it's probably appropriate that the most cherished prize in journalism is named for one of the inventors of Yellow Journalism. Pulitzer and William Randolph Heart are considered by some historians to have engineered the war against Spain, considered by many of today's radical history professors as one of America's most embarrassingly imperial actions since becoming a major player on the world stage. Think of it as equivalent to the Lester Maddox Diversity Award, or the Kanye West School for Etiquette.
Today, we save this honor for those for people who go after vice-presidential nominees who we want to portray as spendthrifts even when the media knows the narrative has been a false and misleading one. Yea, who's the spendthrift now?
The NY Times ombudsman had the unenviable task of explaining yet another instance where Times readers not only didn't know about a story until much of it was pretty well-covered by talk radio and Fox News, but then had to make excuses for why they missed yet another story of corruption from Obama-related people/organizations. (Obama was an attorney for ACORN and has kept close ties to the organization)
Powerline blog has my favorite coverage of this ludicrous excuse of "insufficient tuned-in-ness"
The ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, quotes a journalism expert who says that in today's media environment, "[e]ven the suspicion of a bias is a problem all by itself.
Powerline's Scott Johnson then drops this classic line:
You got that right.
Most recently, the expose' of the corrupt ACORN organization, long known to be the political equivalent of La Cosa Nostra, (like here, here, here, here, and here) was exposed to be a fundamentally, and systemically, scam-riddled political operation. So? Well, it's even more illegal when it's done with government money. Who did this great public service of exposing this racketeering? The Times? The Washington Post of Woodward and Bernstein fame? No, they are busy sliming the 20-something messengers. The renowned CBS 60 Minutes? Nope, too busy trying to help Obama pass health care.
Nope. A 20 year-old intern and a 25-year old self-made undercover filmmaker blew the lid off this scandal when videos were released for several days on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website showing several ACORN offices only too happy to help the pimp and his prostitute find subsidized housing and tax help for setting up there "business" of using underage illegal immigrants as sex slaves.
In the old days, when the press had at least a fig leaf of impartiality, these two would be heralded as heroes of journalism and get at least some buzz for possible Pulitzer prizes. As a side note, it's probably appropriate that the most cherished prize in journalism is named for one of the inventors of Yellow Journalism. Pulitzer and William Randolph Heart are considered by some historians to have engineered the war against Spain, considered by many of today's radical history professors as one of America's most embarrassingly imperial actions since becoming a major player on the world stage. Think of it as equivalent to the Lester Maddox Diversity Award, or the Kanye West School for Etiquette.
Today, we save this honor for those for people who go after vice-presidential nominees who we want to portray as spendthrifts even when the media knows the narrative has been a false and misleading one. Yea, who's the spendthrift now?
The NY Times ombudsman had the unenviable task of explaining yet another instance where Times readers not only didn't know about a story until much of it was pretty well-covered by talk radio and Fox News, but then had to make excuses for why they missed yet another story of corruption from Obama-related people/organizations. (Obama was an attorney for ACORN and has kept close ties to the organization)
Powerline blog has my favorite coverage of this ludicrous excuse of "insufficient tuned-in-ness"
The ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, quotes a journalism expert who says that in today's media environment, "[e]ven the suspicion of a bias is a problem all by itself.
Powerline's Scott Johnson then drops this classic line:
To say that the New York Times is suspected of liberal bias is like saying that Ted Bundy was suspected of being an unsuitable prom date.
You got that right.
No comments:
Post a Comment