Michael Gaynor
The Times is NOT hilarious, Laura Ingraham
By Michael Gaynor
The biggest problem with The Times is NOT lack of vigilance or inconsistency. It is publishing what fits the political correctness agenda and concealing or even denying truths that do not fit.
The New York Times (June 12, 2010):
"The Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks.
"In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press."
Laura Ingraham, in a June 14, 2010 "Laura Unleashed' item titled "Hilarious: NY Times notes lack of media criticism for Obama it could provide" (http://lauraingraham.com/b/Hilarious:-NY-Times-notes-lack-of-media-criticism-it-could-provide/267381166413755748.html): "Obama's actions would have provoked sharp criticism from the media if Bush had been the perpetrator...and if the New York Times was as vigilant as it was during the Bush years!"
It WOULD be hilarious IF it wasn't tragic. Assuming that The Times is well-intentioned is a mistake.
The biggest problem with The Times is NOT lack of vigilance or inconsistency. It is publishing what fits the political correctness agenda and concealing or even denying truths that do not fit.
The Times coverage of the Duke case shows that the actual truth was an impediment to the so-called "greater truth."
Stuart Taylor Jr. covered legal affairs and the United States Supreme Court for The New York Times for eight years.
In Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case at p. 263, Taylor and KC Johnson described an instance of The Times printing falsehoods:
"Late in the afternoon of August 24 [2006], [New York Times reporter Duff] Wilson called [defense attorney] Brad Bannon for comment — hoping, Bannon later suspected, to catch the attorney's voicemail so The Times could say that defense attorneys had not returned a call. But Bannon was at his desk, and when Wilson laid out the article's pro-[now disgraced and disbarred former Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael] Nifong thesis, he was horrified.
"Bannon and [senior partner Joseph] Cheshire spent hours on the phone with Wilson that afternoon. When the reporter suggested that [false accuser Crystal Gail] Mangum was bruised, Bannon sent along the March 16 photos showing no bruising. The lawyers painstakingly walked Wilson through the evidentiary holes in Nifong's case. Wilson thanked them for their help; that evening, he sent Bannon a peculiar request for a full copy of the discovery file, so he could engage in a 'more careful' and 're-reviewing' of the material — after the huge article was published. Wouldn't that be a bit late? While Bannon and Cheshire got some (not all) factual errors removed, it was clear that the article's pro-Nifong slant was set in stone."
On October 22, 2008, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief learned that The Times' pro-Obama slant was "set in stone" too.
I wrote about evidence of that in "ACORN WHISTLEBLOWER: OBAMA'S THIRD STRIKE?" (October 22, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081022):
"Yesterday, [ACORN whistleblower] Anita [MonCrief] advised me, [New York Times national correspondent Stephanie] Strom apologetically canceled a meeting for today and explained that New York Times policy was not to publish what might be a game changing article this close to the election.
"I think that should be in a footnote to The Times' 'All the news that's fit to print' motto."
Ms. MonCrief had been a Times source for months, but The Times wanted Obama to be elected as so it was not about to report what Ms. MonCrief had told Ms. Strom and emailed me earlier in October involving then presidential candidate Obama and his campaign:
Ms. MonCrief:
"I worked at Project Vote and ACORN for years and can provide inside information on the connections with Obama and FEC violations, IRS 501 (c)3 violations and the threats and intimidation that ACORN has used to keep me quiet. I am willing to submit to a polygraph and turn over Obama's 2nd quarter donor list with was obtained by Project Vote Development Director Karyn Gillette directly from the Obama Campaign. I also have a DNC list that was forwarded to Project Vote along with donor lists for Kerry and Clinton."
"I have been black listed by ACORN, fired from my new job for bogus reasons and threatened daily. I turned to you because with whistle blowers, sometimes the media is the best protection. I am not sure how you would protect your sources.
"Project Vote used the list in violation of FEC rules for fundraising. Obama is in very deep with ACORN and Project Vote and I have knowledge of meetings between the campaign and Senior ACORN members."
"I am looking for help and did not know how else to contact you. I did google you and I was happy to see that you are a lawyer. I do have a lot of internal docs for ACORN and Project Vote. I took a call from the Obama campaign while working there and was privy to a meeting where information between the two camps was discussed. I was told by PV that we were working with them and that I was to de-dupe the Obama 2nd Quarter list and get to work contacting donors. We also received help from the DNC, Clinton and Kerry (in 2004). I will take a polygraph and turn over what I have. I am in DC. Obama's camp was contacted by the NYT about the documents and they claim that PV got it online from published document and more questions led to a screaming match between the reporter and the campaign. Two days after that PV began contacting old references and friends in an effort to discredit me. That's why I agreed to the polygraph because I am not lying, they are."
America's Founders expected America's newspapers to expose corruption, not to ignore or conceal it.
© Michael Gaynor
June 17, 2010
The biggest problem with The Times is NOT lack of vigilance or inconsistency. It is publishing what fits the political correctness agenda and concealing or even denying truths that do not fit.
The New York Times (June 12, 2010):
"The Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks.
"In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press."
Laura Ingraham, in a June 14, 2010 "Laura Unleashed' item titled "Hilarious: NY Times notes lack of media criticism for Obama it could provide" (http://lauraingraham.com/b/Hilarious:-NY-Times-notes-lack-of-media-criticism-it-could-provide/267381166413755748.html): "Obama's actions would have provoked sharp criticism from the media if Bush had been the perpetrator...and if the New York Times was as vigilant as it was during the Bush years!"
It WOULD be hilarious IF it wasn't tragic. Assuming that The Times is well-intentioned is a mistake.
The biggest problem with The Times is NOT lack of vigilance or inconsistency. It is publishing what fits the political correctness agenda and concealing or even denying truths that do not fit.
The Times coverage of the Duke case shows that the actual truth was an impediment to the so-called "greater truth."
Stuart Taylor Jr. covered legal affairs and the United States Supreme Court for The New York Times for eight years.
In Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case at p. 263, Taylor and KC Johnson described an instance of The Times printing falsehoods:
"Late in the afternoon of August 24 [2006], [New York Times reporter Duff] Wilson called [defense attorney] Brad Bannon for comment — hoping, Bannon later suspected, to catch the attorney's voicemail so The Times could say that defense attorneys had not returned a call. But Bannon was at his desk, and when Wilson laid out the article's pro-[now disgraced and disbarred former Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael] Nifong thesis, he was horrified.
"Bannon and [senior partner Joseph] Cheshire spent hours on the phone with Wilson that afternoon. When the reporter suggested that [false accuser Crystal Gail] Mangum was bruised, Bannon sent along the March 16 photos showing no bruising. The lawyers painstakingly walked Wilson through the evidentiary holes in Nifong's case. Wilson thanked them for their help; that evening, he sent Bannon a peculiar request for a full copy of the discovery file, so he could engage in a 'more careful' and 're-reviewing' of the material — after the huge article was published. Wouldn't that be a bit late? While Bannon and Cheshire got some (not all) factual errors removed, it was clear that the article's pro-Nifong slant was set in stone."
On October 22, 2008, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief learned that The Times' pro-Obama slant was "set in stone" too.
I wrote about evidence of that in "ACORN WHISTLEBLOWER: OBAMA'S THIRD STRIKE?" (October 22, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081022):
"Yesterday, [ACORN whistleblower] Anita [MonCrief] advised me, [New York Times national correspondent Stephanie] Strom apologetically canceled a meeting for today and explained that New York Times policy was not to publish what might be a game changing article this close to the election.
"I think that should be in a footnote to The Times' 'All the news that's fit to print' motto."
Ms. MonCrief had been a Times source for months, but The Times wanted Obama to be elected as so it was not about to report what Ms. MonCrief had told Ms. Strom and emailed me earlier in October involving then presidential candidate Obama and his campaign:
Ms. MonCrief:
"I worked at Project Vote and ACORN for years and can provide inside information on the connections with Obama and FEC violations, IRS 501 (c)3 violations and the threats and intimidation that ACORN has used to keep me quiet. I am willing to submit to a polygraph and turn over Obama's 2nd quarter donor list with was obtained by Project Vote Development Director Karyn Gillette directly from the Obama Campaign. I also have a DNC list that was forwarded to Project Vote along with donor lists for Kerry and Clinton."
"I have been black listed by ACORN, fired from my new job for bogus reasons and threatened daily. I turned to you because with whistle blowers, sometimes the media is the best protection. I am not sure how you would protect your sources.
"Project Vote used the list in violation of FEC rules for fundraising. Obama is in very deep with ACORN and Project Vote and I have knowledge of meetings between the campaign and Senior ACORN members."
"I am looking for help and did not know how else to contact you. I did google you and I was happy to see that you are a lawyer. I do have a lot of internal docs for ACORN and Project Vote. I took a call from the Obama campaign while working there and was privy to a meeting where information between the two camps was discussed. I was told by PV that we were working with them and that I was to de-dupe the Obama 2nd Quarter list and get to work contacting donors. We also received help from the DNC, Clinton and Kerry (in 2004). I will take a polygraph and turn over what I have. I am in DC. Obama's camp was contacted by the NYT about the documents and they claim that PV got it online from published document and more questions led to a screaming match between the reporter and the campaign. Two days after that PV began contacting old references and friends in an effort to discredit me. That's why I agreed to the polygraph because I am not lying, they are."
America's Founders expected America's newspapers to expose corruption, not to ignore or conceal it.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
