Skip navigation

Tag Archives: NEW YORK TIMES

Massive Conservative D.C. Protest Buried and Dismissed, But Smaller Liberal Rallies Hailed
A conservative protest at the Capitol numbering in the tens of thousands was worth an unfavorable story on page 37. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Posted by: Clay Waters
9/14/2009 3:43:28 PM

There was a huge protest against Obama’s big-government plans at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, but one was hard-pressed to find evidence of it on the Times home page Sunday morning: A small headline tucked under the Political subhead.

The print edition wasn’t much more forthcoming. Although the Washington D.C. Fire Dept. estimated 60,000 to 70,000 people attended the 9/12 protest, and many estimates are higher, the Times made do with one medium-sized story buried on page A37 of the Sunday paper, “Thousands Attend Broad Protest of Government,” teasing it on the front page in a below-the-fold photo from the march. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement in the Times, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Reporter Jeff Zeleny painted protesters as “angry” and “profane” and that the rally contained “no shortage of vitriol,” as if there were never raised voices and obscene signage at left-wing anti-war rallies:

A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.

On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower taxes and a smaller government.

But as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like “God Bless America,” sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress.

….

The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the “parasite in chief.” Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up preprinted signs saying, “Bury Obama Care with Kennedy,” a reference to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two weeks earlier to be memorialized.

Other signs did not focus on Mr. Obama, but rather on the government at large, promoting gun rights, tallying the national deficit and deploring illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Check out this backhanded compliment:

Still, many demonstrators expressed their views without a hint of rage. They said the size of the crowd illustrated that their views were shared by a broader audience.

Zeleny found some unnamed “Republican officials” to fret over a backlash, and downplayed the significance of those who turned out:

Mr. DeMint and a few Republican legislators were the only party leaders on hand for the demonstration. Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians. And most of those who turned out were not likely to have been Obama voters anyway.

Did the Times ever suggest anti-war demonstrators “were not like to have been Bush voters anyway”?

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of protesters in colonial gear wended through the crowd, led by a bell ringer in a tricorn hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers.

Obama’s health-care speech on Saturday actually got slightly better placement. It landed on page A35 under a similar headline, “Thousands Rally in Minnesota Behind Obama’s Call for Health Care Overhaul,” although the attendance at the Target Center in Minneapolis was reliably estimated at around 15,000, making it at least four times smaller than the D.C. rally. Obama and his fans also got more positive coverage from reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

Thousands of roaring supporters turned out Saturday to rally behind President Obama’s call to overhaul the nation’s health care system, packing a basketball arena here as Mr. Obama warned that nearly half of all Americans under 65 could lose their insurance at some point during the next decade….On a day when demonstrators crammed onto the west lawn of the Capitol to protest what they regard as Mr. Obama’s brand of big government, including his health plan, the images of screaming, cheering Obama supporters here provided a welcome visual counterpoint for the White House. The White House estimated that 15,000 people attended the rally here; the applause was thunderous when the president bounded onto the stage, shirtsleeves rolled up, as he revived an old campaign rallying cry: “Are you fired up?”

In fact, the Times’ coverage of the huge anti-government rally in the nation’s capital was on the same level as the coverage of an ACORN-organized left-wing “bus tour” of homes of American International Group executives back in March, a piece of Astroturf so blatant even the Times admitted the media outnumbered the protesters. Yet while 40 left-wing protesters in Connecticut were worth a 724-word Times story back in March, an estimated 70,000 anti-Obama protesters in D.C. garnered a 932-word story on Saturday. A slight anomaly?

There was nothing on the Times’ “Caucus” blog from the actual march, although the blog did preview it Saturday morning with a pessimistic estimate of the crowd size (“as many as 30,000 demonstrators are expected”), in a post marked with suspicion of the protest’s origin and motives. That post also granted top billing to Obama’s speech.

Another telling contrast: The coverage of Saturday’s march (and the previous Tea Party protests) with the fawning coverage of the pro-illegal immigration protests of 2006, when amnesty for illegals was on the agenda. The Times didn’t find much “vitriol” at the massive rallies in support of illegal immigration. Here’s Robert McFadden in the April 10, 2006 Times, describing the largest of the nationwide rallies in Dallas:

The Dallas protesters were young and old. Some were families pushing baby strollers. Some walked with canes, others rolled along in wheelchairs. There were members of unions, churches, civil rights organizations and business groups, but many were strangers to one another. Some spoke passionately about their desire to be Americans, to vote and to hold a job without fea

– Boycott The New York Times – http://boycottnyt.com

Times Asserts Americans Want Bigger Government

By Don Feder
February 17, 2009 <!– In Articles | No Comments –>

One of The New York Times’
favorite techniques for indoctrinating in the guise of news coverage is
to casually assert something that advances its agenda and expect
readers to take it at face value. Read More »

– Boycott The New York Times – http://boycottnyt.com

Times Glosses Over Kansas Gov’s Radical Pro-Abortion Record

By Don Feder February 19, 2009

In a story today on President Obama’s likely choice of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services, The New York Times glossed over the nominee’s radical pro-abortion record in two sentences: “One issue that could draw attention is her stance on abortion. A Roman Catholic who says abortion’s wrong, Ms. Sebelius vetoed a bill requiring clinics to report information on why a late-term abortion was performed, drawing the condemnation of the archbishop of Kansas City, Kan.” The Times [1] refuses to call the procedure what it manifestly is — a partial-birth abortion — choosing instead the values-neutral expression “late-term abortion.” Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has asked Sebelius to refrain from taking communion, due to “scandalous behavior that has misled people into dangerous behavior,” on the abortion issue. In a May 26, 2008 [2] column in The Washington Post, Robert Novak called the governor “the national pro-choice poster girl.” Last April, Sebelius vetoed a bill to strengthen regulation of late-term abortions. She vetoed other restrictions on abortion in 2003, 2005 and 2006. The governor personally recruited and funded a candidate to run against then-Attorney General Phil Kline, who was prosecuting partial-birth abortionist George Tiller. Thanks largely to money Sebelius raised for his opponent, Kline was defeated at the polls. Tiller donated $120,000 to the Democratic Governors’ Association, which in turn contributed $200,000 to Sebelius’ PAC to fund pro-choice candidates, in what right-to-lifers allege to be a money-laundering scheme. In April, 2007, Sebelius reportedly held a private party in the governor’s mansion for Tiller and the staff of his clinic, at a time when the abortionist was under investigation by the Attorney General’s Office. If George W. Bush had nominated for Secretary of HHS a governor associated with Operation Rescue, you can bet The New York Times would have reported it in more than two sentences buried in an article touting the nominee as a well-qualified moderate. Article printed from Boycott The New York Times: http://boycottnyt.com URL to article: http://boycottnyt.com/times-glosses-over-kansas-govs-radical-pro-abortion-record/ URLs in this post: [1] refuses: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/us/politics/19health.html [2] column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502275.html Click here to print. Copyright © 2008 Boycott The New York Times. All rights reserved.

Icon - Comments262 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink

Tim Blair Blog Icon Arrow

Tim Blair

Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 04:14am

“And you thought her media outings as a vice presidential candidate were as bad as it gets,” says alarmed MSNBC host David Shuster … following footage of Sarah Palin speaking at a turkey processing plant:

Shuster (who urges that young viewers be shielded from the interview) also seems appalled that Palin had “no worries” over being filmed at the tragic turkey massacre site. Even worse – bloodlusting bird-hater Palin admits she’ll actually cook a turkey for Thanksgiving. Among MSNBC’s captions:

• TURKEYS DIE AS GOVERNOR PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS FROM MEDIA
• GOV. SARAH KEEPS TALKING WHILE TURKEYS GET SLAUGHTERED BEHIND HER
• GOV. PALIN APPARENTLY OBLIVIOUS TO TURKEY CARNAGE OVER HER SHOULDER

What did they expect her to do? Intervene?

UPDATE. Shuster claims his network has “sanitised” the video, removing the “goriest parts”. Here’s uncensored vision. Take a look. Where are the gory parts? Can’t MSNBC nancies even cope with bloodless background vision of a farm animal being offed? Just as well Palin never turned up on Iron Chef: “A lot of resistance being put up by that one!” Note that tiny Japanese actress Naomi Hosokawa is not nearly so squeamish as Shuster.

UPDATE II. NBC finds the video – shot by an NBC affiliate – “too grisly for some”. Meaning MSNBC pantyboys.

UPDATE III. Tellingly, the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate pre-empted MSNBC’s line: “Just when you thought Sarah Palin’s interactions with the media couldn’t get any worse …”

UPDATE IV. Wonkette labels this a “celebration of death”. Writes one commenter: “She is the dumbest whore I have ever seen.”

UPDATE V. The Fort Mill Times rips at reader hearts over the rescue of the bird Palin pardoned: “As his turkey pals – and maybe some family members – watched, the turkey Palin named Thanksgiving got a second chance at life.” These people are insane.

UPDATE VI. Finally, a sensible comment: “The real problem with this video is that there wasn’t someone on the second machine. C’mon People! Let’s be efficient!”

UPDATE VII. Comment at the Washington Post: “They got a turkey like Palin into a slaughterhouse and let her out alive? For shame.”

UPDATE VIII. Elizabeth Snead in the LA Times:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin pardons Tom the Turkey, then blabbles on, making little to no sense (as usual), while talking turkey and politics to a news crew.

What she does not know is that at least two helpless turkeys are being slaughtered alive in the background, their legs wiggling as their heads are stuffed into a grinder by a smiling camera-hog executioner.

Nice to see someone who enjoys their work, huh?

Hey, Elizabeth? How much sense do you think you’re making with “slaughtered alive”? Ever heard of anything being killed prior to slaughter? Enjoy your work.

UPDATE IX. Snead doesn’t know much about guns, either.

UPDATE X (via ninme). The UK Telegraph‘s Toby Harnden is hallucinating:

The death penalty is being administered behind her. “This was neat,” she says, as the turkey strangler goes about his grim business.

That was no turkey strangler – this is a turkey strangler:

Frightened media babies are advised to look away.

UPDATE XI. Ann Althouse: “Deal with it, you candy-asses.” Quite so.

UPDATE XII. Oh my God, Johnny, they’re turkeys!! Johnny, can you get this? Oh, they’re plunging to the earth right in front of our eyes! One just went through the windshield of a parked car! Oh, the humanity! The turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!

UPDATE XIII. Even HuffPoster Chris Weigant finds this turkey panic absurd:

Some of the networks who showed this video pixilated (blurred out) the turkeys being slaughtered in the background. Seriously—even though you can barely see what the guy in the background is actually doing, and cannot see any truly gruesome details—the networks were scared to show it.

This is pathetic. Truly, truly pathetic.

UPDATE XIV. The editorial board of the New York Times is worried. As well it might be, considering that the Times is being fed head-first into a bankruptcy machine.

UPDATE XV. Reader Aaron Ong attempts an analogy:

A similar example would be an aspiring politician who claims to be anti-abortion, having a news interview in the front of an abortion clinic while an abortion is taking place in the background.

Wrong, Ong. Palin supports turkey farming and is filmed as turkeys are processed. No inconsistency there. Now let’s see Barack Obama (or any pro-abortion politician) hold an interview at that abortion clinic you mentioned …

UPDATE XVI. Powerline: “Today we learned something horrible about liberals.”

UPDATE XVII. Mark Steyn: “I didn’t think I could like Sarah Palin more than I do, but the nancy boys at MSNBC bleating all over the screen about the Great Turkey Carnage is hilarious.”

UPDATE XVIII. Even the Telegraph warns of “graphic footage”. Someone must’ve left anxious intern Trembles McHandflap in charge of the website.

– Boycott The New York Times – http://boycottnyt.com

NY Times Attacks Border Security

By donfeder
October 22, 2008 <!– In Articles | No Comments –>

In a [1] story in today’s New York Times, the paper once again goes to bat for illegal immigration – this time by attacking a border fence in Friendship Park near San Diego.

Formerly, the Park “stood out as a spot where international neighbors [i.e., Mexicans in Mexico and Mexicans residing in the United States] can chat easily over the fence,” The Times gushes.

But now, the once-tattered chain-link fence is being replaced with a more formidable barrier, making it harder for cross-border socializing – a tragedy of unparalleled proportions, from The Times’ perspective. Read More »

OK for AFL-CIO to Bash McCain, Yet Anti-Obama Mail Racially Suspect?
A tale of two mailings: One reporter revels in the the AFL-CIO’s big political push against McCain, while another laments “…new, harsh anti-Obama literature in my mailbox.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/21/2008 3:44:04 PM

Steven Greenhouse, the Times’ pro-union, anti-Wal-Mart labor reporter, seemed pretty enthused about the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s attack mailings against John McCain in “A.F.L.-C.I.O. Targets Seniors,” the neutrally headlined story he filed to the “Caucus” blog Tuesday morning.

Only two of the 19 paragraphs of Greenhouse’s story are devoted to (very mildly) fact-checking the false claims from the union-backed mailing. Here’s an excerpt:

The latest mailer is headlined, “John McCain: A Disaster for Retirees.” It criticizes his proposal for partially privatizing Social Security, saying, “This risky move will jeopardize the chances of a secure retirement for millions of Americans.”

The mailer also seeks to undermine the Republican candidate by saying, “McCain will cut Medicare.” It says he “wants to fund his pro-insurance company health care plan by taking more than $1 trillion from Medicare.”

The McCain campaign has attacked such assertions as wildly distorted, while some neutral experts have noted that Mr. McCain has never proposed such a large cut in Medicare, although he has indicated he would cut health care programs to help balance the budget.

Greenhouse is soft-pedaling here. In fact, the watchdog group FactCheck.org, which the Times has often treated as gospel when it comes to “correcting” John McCain claims, flatly calls the charge that McCain plans to cut Medicare by such a large amount “false.”

Ms. Ackerman said, “Once retirees and seniors hear from their unions about where McCain stands on privatizing Social Security and taxing health-care benefits and where Obama stands on the issues, we know we can get a majority of these voters to support Obama.”

Over the past week, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. expanded its campaign efforts into three additional states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — that were won by George W. Bush in 2004, but are now viewed as winnable for Mr. Obama.

“We have a very nimble program because we have union members everywhere,” [Karen] Ackerman said.

Greenhouse let AFL-CIO political director Ackerman crow for several paragraphs about the group’s big budget and massive campaign effort, while never uttering a discouraging word. It was almost as if they were on the same team.

Compare that reaction to the scandalized tone taken by another Times reporter, Damien Cave, to the sight of two anti-Obama mailers in his Florida mailbox that dared to attack Obama on taxes and crime. Cave’s story, “In Florida Mailboxes, Harsh Attacks on Obama,” was filed on “The Caucus” blog Monday evening.

Early voting in Florida began today, with long lines at several polling places, a flood of robocalls, a rally by Senator Barack Obama in Tampa — and some new, harsh anti-Obama literature in my mailbox.

Those of us who live in swing states are already familiar with negative television ads from both Democrats and Republicans. At this point, I’m on the verge of having nightmares with the giant ball of orange thread rolling through Senator Obama’s health care ad — the one that runs incessantly here, ending with a narrator saying Senator McCain will leave you “hanging by a thread.”

But even in this hot-headed environment, the literature stands out. One flier, paid for by the Republican National Committee, states that in the midst of the economic crisis “Barack Obama’s solution is to take more of your money!”

By several fact-checkers’ accounts, that’s a misrepresentation of Senator Obama’s tax plan, which would cut taxes for roughly 95 percent of the country.

To prove himself right, Cave linked to an article by Times’ reporter Larry Rohter, who has rarely met an Obama attack he couldn’t spin in Obama’s favor. But both Cave and Rohter are wrong. Obama’s tax plan can’t cut taxes for 95% because many Americans pay no income tax at all. As the Media Research Center’s Brent Baker has argued:

That 95 percent is impossible since one-third of those who file with the IRS are “non-payers,” people who end up paying no tax or get money back which exceeds their payments. Obama plans to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and create other credits. For those for whom the credits surpass their tax obligation, those are not tax cuts, but spending hikes or federal giveaways akin to welfare.

Cave was grossly offended by another piece of literature, which dared to question Obama’s record on crime:

The second piece of literature, paid for by the Republican Party of Florida, provides a new line of attack. It alleges that Senator Obama would be soft on crime. Few issues are as racially radioactive, especially here in Miami, so it is worth asking: Does the flier go over the line?

Some of it focuses on Senator Obama’s voting history (oversimplifying a present vote in the Illinois senate to suggest he is “against protecting children from danger,” in one example). But on the front, there is a picture of Senator Obama, looking menacing, with an all-black background. On the other side, above the address it says: “Obama: ‘he acted more as a friend to criminals than to cops…’”

At the end, Cave half-heartedly clarifies that race wasn’t actually mentioned in the flier:

It ends with “Barack Obama, not who you think he is” but it does not mention Mr. Wright, nor does it mention race.

Calls to the state Republican party were not returned.

The Times: No Nose for News on Biden’s “International Crisis” Comment
Even Dan Rather recognizes it’s a big story — but the Times buried it under a separate headline.

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/21/2008 2:49:10 PM

On Tuesday, Times’ reporter Michael Powell mentioned Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden’s striking assertion (the top story on the Drudge Report early Tuesday afternoon) that foreign forces would generate a crisis to test the mettle of Barack Obama:

More than 1,000 miles away, in Belton, Mo., Mr. McCain freshened his criticism of Mr. Obama as too untested to be president by seizing on remarks from Mr. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., that an international crisis might test a new Obama administration.

Mr. McCain asserted that Mr. Biden had told donors Sunday that in a crisis, Obama and Biden supporters “would have to stand with them because it wouldn’t be apparent that Senator Obama would have the right response.”

Mr. Biden, according to remarks recorded and transcribed by ABC News from a fund-raiser in San Francisco, had said: “Mark my words: it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.

“We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here, if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Dan Rather himself (who knows something about political double standards from all his years of liberal bias as CBS anchor) said that Biden’s outburst “would be above the fold in most newspapers today” if said by Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. So how did the Times play it?

Certainly not above the fold; instead, it was buried in the 11th paragraph of the Powell story on A-18, under the headline “Obama Briefly Leaving Trail to See Ill Grandmother.”

McCain Hypocritically Goes After Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” Gaffe
Reporter Michael Cooper, still protecting Barack Obama’s left flank on taxes.

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/21/2008 11:39:16 AM

John McCain spent the weekend hammering Barack Obama for his “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber. Michael Cooper’s Monday “Political Memo,” “‘Spreading the Wealth’ as Both Accusation and Prescription,” makes the point that in a sense we’re all socialists now thanks to the federal bailout of the financial system, but then twisted that observation into a predictable partisan accusation of hypocrisy on the part of McCain, while fact-checking McCain’s tax plans with a vigor the paper has rarely expended on Obama’s claims.

In a radio address on Saturday, Mr. McCain said that “at least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives.” Asked in an interview on “Fox News Sunday” whether he believed that Mr. Obama’s plans amount to socialism, Mr. McCain said, “I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth.” Pressed again on the subject, Mr. McCain said, “That’s one of the tenets of socialism.”

And in rallies from Miami to North Carolina to here, Mr. McCain gets some of the biggest crowd reactions when he thunders that Mr. Obama wants to “spread the wealth around.” Some members of the audience even chant the line along with him.

Still, at rally after rally Mr. McCain denounces Mr. Obama for wanting to redistribute wealth, hitting especially hard on Mr. Obama’s plan to give tax credits, in the form of checks, to some people who do not pay income tax. (Mr. McCain omits the fact that his own health care plan would do much the same thing, giving tax credits of $5,000 to families for health insurance, regardless of whether they pay income taxes.)

The problem is that Obama is falsely claiming his plan would cut income taxes on 95% of people — an impossible figure, given that many Americans don’t pay any income tax at all.

Cooper also let in some labeling bias. While the Cato Institute is accurately described as a “libertarian research group,” the liberal Brookings Institution is merely a “public policy research group.”