New York Times Still Awaiting First Interview With President George W. Bush

Andrew Malcolm from the L.A. Times' "Top Of The Ticket" blog notes that nine years after Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. publicly requested an audience with then-Presidential aspirant George W. Bush, the Grey Lady is still waiting for President Bush to come a'calling for an interview. The White House has basically publicly hemmed and hawed, whilst privately cackling, because why would they ever meet with a newspaper that employs "major league assholes" like Adam Clymer?

Well, someone apparently asked NYT's Sheryl Gay Stolberg about how the White House gets along with reporters, and she let it be known that they send the paper mean emails on a regular basis:

The New York Times, for instance, has had a standing request to interview President Bush since well before I came on this beat in May 2006. So far, no interview -- and the reason why is hardly a secret.

White House officials are quite open about the fact that we have not gotten an interview because they don't like our coverage. I get e-mails to that effect from them all the time. But the request still stands, and we are hoping for an interview before Mr. Bush leaves office.

Well, even if the desired tete-a-tete with the horse's mouth never materializes, the Times will still be able to claim ownership of the next best thing: the 2002-2005 reportage of Judith Miller.

Comments

[Luigi53102]

Well, even if the desired tete-a-tete with the horse's mouth never materializes

Sorry, wrong part of the horse.

[Hawka]

And the right was complaining when Obama didn't take a question from Fixed News at his press conference. The Double Standard is outrageous really.

[Cookie100]

Why, if it weren't for Judith Miller and the NYT, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq.

[6bd]

hmmmmm?

[Durango]

As much contempt as i have for the American Corporate media we still need good reporters out there covering stories.

And despite Judith Miller and the failings of the past decade (or more) we still need reporters. Working for institutions big and independent enough to take on the government.

While the NY Times is not the ideal institution it still has a role to play.

P.S. The NYT is liberal exactly like Joe Lieberman is liberal.
It is a vehicle to sell advertising.

And no one in the advertising business is "liberal."

[brooklyncitizen]

NYT is pure govt propaganda. This public"feud" is for our benefit.

[whiteboyblues]

Where is the countdown timer Fox News style?

[sposton]

Serves them well. Maybe Bush lost respect for them after they've bent over for him too many times. Remember pre Iraq war stories in NYT?

[jugganaut]

I still haven't forgiven the Times for sitting on the warrantless wiretapping story before the 2004 election.

[11907281]

Is ownership of Miller a good thing? Why?

[DosaHut]

No big surprise. Times is liberal! Duh.

[bannorhill]

The New York Times has snubbed the Republican Party for ove 50 years. It's about time Republicans returned the favor.

[mirage2008]

The Republicans are going to be snubbed by the American people for the next 8. ;-D

[Durango]

Make that the next generation:

Or two.

[SoCalGal44]

ROTFLMAO!!!

[jimme]

Republicans? What were those?