Obama Snubs New York Times, Breaks Pre-Inauguration Tradition

Although New York Times columnists David Brooks and Bill Kristol sat down with Barack Obama last night, the paper's White House team still hasn't had the opportunity to do so since Election Day.

Unlike recent White House occupants--such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton--Obama has yet to provide The Times with the sort of free-wheeling, pre-Inauguration interview the paper's come to expect. And there's little expectation it will happen before Tuesday.

"We would certainly like it to happen," said Times political editor Dick Stevenson, "but the days are running short at this point."

Stevenson said that although The Times has put in multiple requests to the Obama team, and "pointed out the historical precedent for this," they've had no luck securing a sit-down.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Manx]

At the beginning of Bush's presidency, Bush referred to a N.Y. Times reporter as an A.H. Now, Obama is snubbing the N.Y. Times. Looks as if Obama and Bush have something in common.

Too bad Obama isn't as supportive of the sinking newspaper industry as he is of General Motors.

[lj9283]

The New York Times has been particularly negative in reporting on Ms. Kennedy in her pursuit of the New York Senate seat being vacated by Ms. Clinton.

Ms. Kennedy is Mr. Obama's friend.

Mr. Obama has not gone out of his way to accommodate the New York Times

Merely coincidence?

[KansasWrangler]

What the NYT has to say is irrelevant to 90 percent of Americans, as is the opinion of most newspapers in this country. Getting your face on TV is the priority.

[DS3M]

It's funny how blindly all of you jomokes seem to love the NYT. I'm not a conservative or a republican, and I think the NYT is valuable, but the idea that they should be able to sit w obama just b/c of precedent is a shameless attempt to get access and should be rejected on its face.

[HLL]

The New York Times lost my faith in them as a great newspaper when they first supported Hillary Clinton for President and then immediately ripped her candidacy to shreds with scathing editorials. There are several New York Times' columnists who continue to be unrelentingly negative about Hillary, unable to conceal their vicious personal hatred of her (for whatever reasons.)

That's when the New York Times lost my respect. It isn't just that they are transparent about who and what they like and don't like, it's that they've lost whatever impartial reporting of the news without bias they might have had.

I'm a fan of Christiane Amanpour . She reports the facts brilliantly and without bias. I do not know what she personally thinks or believes and that to me is great reporting. If the New York Times once had that kind of impartiality, so crucial to a newspaper, they lost it for me last year.

What I admire most about President-elect Obama is his balance and consideration of all opinions howsoever they differ from his. Perhaps the New York Times can take a page out of his play-book.

[adamsmith3]

Such self-entitlement from the NYT. They are desperate for revenue and figure all of the Obama fanatics will snatch up hard-copy of the paper with his interview and vacuum seal it as a collector's item.

[the964kid]

NYTs is so sloppy these days - it completely deserves this shabby treatment.

[bascombe]

the times deserves nothing.

[sixx]

Thank you.

[AmbivalentGuy]

A sit down with NYT and Bill Kristol?
His time would be better spent on
the hunt for the pre-superstar mutt
he promised the kids.

Besides he'll only need a lint brush when he gets
home, not decontamination.

[mphalen]

"Going forward, Stevenson said that he hopes the Obama administration doesn’t follow “a pattern of media handling that really excludes, or seeks to minimize our ability to question him close, about a lot of the huge issues the nation faces.” "

Just like the way you questioned Bush close and about the "huge" issues the nation faces?

[pfrogger]

Why won't the Times just die?
Their attempt at the facade of journalistic integrity is just insulting to everyone and purely pathetic.
Now they want to do a real story.
Were they asleep the last 8 years.

[truthglow]

No, they were in BED with Judith Miller in the run up to the Iraq War. That's where they were.

[NoSandwiches]

pfffffffft!
What's so special about the New York Times?

I get all the news I need on the weather report...

Well....the weather report and HuffPo...

[pfrogger]

Ditto on HuffPo
and the weather report is more trustworthy than the Times anyway

[jazzybo]

And you wonder why they are selling advertisements on the front page?

[JoeDoorman]

If the NYT's was to ask Obama about America is one thing.
Obama knows all the question will be directed towards Israel.
Stay away Obama, you owe them nothing.
Remember you were elected by the people, not the press.
Maureen Dowd is the only person who is relevant in the Times.
She is fair and hopefully will be in your camp, forget the rest.

[NoSandwiches]

You mean the lady who called him Bambi?
huh.

[gi]

Change we can believe in. Love you Obama.