NY Times Holds Stories Because They're Afraid of Conservatives
The John McCain-Vicki Iseman story is not the first article the New York Times has held back for political reasons. They have now done this on at least three occasions:
1. The original FISA story on how the Bush administration was not getting warrants for wiretaps inside the United States.
2. The original story in 2004 that showed Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
3. The McCain-Iseman story.
We had James Risen, the writer of the first two stories on our show back in 2005 and he admitted that they held the Bin Laden story until after the 2004 election because the New York Times didn't want to "get caught up in the politics of it." (You can listen to the whole Jim Risen interview here.)
Another way of stating that is that they were afraid of being called the liberal media by Republicans. After decades of being chastised for being liberal, they have become gun-shy. In this McCain story, they also held off until they were about to outed by other news agencies as sitting on the story.
Conservatives are now charging that the New York Times held off on the story until after McCain had wrapped up the nomination, so they could ruin his chances in the general election. First, this is wrong because if they wanted to hurt his chances of getting elected, they would have revealed this fact much closer to the general election. They couldn't have done McCain a bigger favor than by waiting to release the piece until after the primaries and way, way before the general.
Since they endorsed McCain in January despite knowing this story -- and the clear implications of hypocrisy on campaign finance reform, let alone the other implications -- the most likely conspiracy would be that they favor McCain in the election. But I don't think there is a conspiracy.
I think the far simpler answer is the correct one. The McCain campaign threatened and intimidated them as the Bush team has done on countless occasions and they gave in until someone else was about to release the story. The only thing worse than being bullied by Republicans is getting scooped by your competitors.
The story here isn't that the NYT is trying to hurt conservatives, it's the exact opposite -- they're afraid of them. On every occasion that they have had a major story like this, they have held it after being badgered by Republicans. They only print the stories when there are no other options left and the story is about to get printed elsewhere anyway.
In the end, the concerns Jim Risen expressed to us about politicizing these stories are ironically counterproductive. When any paper holds a story because of political pressure, they are politicizing the story. The only way to avoid making this type of political decision, by commission or omission, is to print the story when you have it.
Now the New York Times has gotten itself in the same old pickle they always do -- they are going to be criticized by Republicans when in fact they were trying to be extra fair to Republicans. What they don't get is that the conservatives view them as the enemy; they are never going to be appeased. So, do us all a favor and just print the damn story when you have it.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
NYT Hopes that disillusioned white male voters in TEXAS & OHIO - who would not vote for a black man - would go for Hillary Clinton.
Bear in mind that the NYT endoresed McCain WHILE they were working on this story, since December 2007.
Thanks for setting the record straight. The Times, like so many other mainstream outlets, appears to so quake in their boots at the prospect of losing access to those in power that they'll repeatedly compromise their newsgathering to please their in-power sources.
They're afraid of them because they're evil!!!! Better spineless than evil I guess.
blackmail, here there and everywhere
That's right, and I again say to one and all:
BOYCOTT the NEW YORK TIMES for crimes against humanity!!!
**********
I stopped buying the NYT in 2004! I did initially miss it, but, it IS...CRIME against HUMANITY (their support for the war in Iraq!)
I believe there is a story here that will unfold over time. I think this is just the beginning. I don't think the NYT's does fluff pieces.
Where's Lindsey Graham today? Is he coming out to support McCain.
Let's just wait and see how this finally unfolds.
God help us if in some way Huckabee becomes the GOP candidate.
"God help us if in some way Huckabee becomes the GOP candidate.
It's worse than that. Hucklebee already IS the presumptive Gop candidate for Vice-Presi
Hucklebee is also thanking G*d, fervently . . . . . and the rest of us are about to find out if the deity's sense of humor --- (or is it sense of justice?) --- is as warped as all the evidence so often seems to indicate.
NY Times afraid of Conservatives? Bull. Why would they be? The times has leaked stories with no punishment whatsoever.
Don't try to make the NY Times out as a victim. What a farce. They're the most powerful piece of media in the country.
That's the real "bull." What power does the NYT have? It's not even the most circulated paper in its own city. The Times is USA Today for snobs of all political persuasions. The NYT doesn't even make the top 20 for influential media anymore.
The New York Times is not liberal. Never was. It's a newspaper for pseudo-int
Dems do not punish you when you reveal their faults/flubs. Repubs will try to kill you if you so much as look askance at them.
BINGO!
also, everything works to show the Neocons attack what they have to hide themselves. Check out what Billary is hiding around this issue. See Cathy OBrien
The mainstream press is the reason McCain is the Rep. frontrunning nominee.
right.....
So America became tolerant of intolerance and intolerant of tolerance.
the NYT has never been, in 40 years I have known it, Liberal.
The NYT is a conservative paper.
Get over it.
THE NEW YORK TIMES embodies "path of least resistance" liberalism. (Like the Congressional Democrats.
yes, yes, yes, yes, YEEEEEESSSS.
GOD have I been saying this for so long. They've held stories, they've not run with stories, they put the cold shower on any real investigative reporting, you name it. Emblematic of the whole "liberal media bias" that even some right-wingers laugh at (when they think of how easy it's been to perpetrate this lie).
Any country where the NYT is considered "liberal" is a massively, perhaps irredeemably, right-leaning country. Sheesh.
Look at how the NYT trashed Ralph Nader and his supporters (all liberals, one must assume) for daring to buck the decrepid (sp?) two-party dominance and practically ordered all Nader supporters to vote for middle-of-the-road mope Albert Gore Jr.
thanks cenk, and your right wing radio monopoly opponents have been doing much of the intimidating.
limbaugh is using this story not to defend mccain but to attack the liberal media as usual.
since reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine the media and progressive candidates and activists have been getting kneecapped with an invisible hammer of the talk radio monopoly.
we need a new Fairness Doctrine ASAP. the TR monopoly, under most strategists and media analysts radar, not only uses its often unseen uncontested repetition to trickle talking points up to the rest of the media but to intimidate it. it has been very effective at determining what is and what isn't acceptable and what molehills need to be turned into mountains.
this latest story will as much as possible be used to reinforce the liberal media myth and direct dittohead attack son it.
Amen brother, amen! I have been saying this over and over again. The right wing propaganda machine is the most powerful political force in this country. Yet the Democrats, liberals, left etc. don't have a clue, nor are in total denial of this fact.
The Republicans have such a powerful and comprehnsive hold on the political message and debate in this country all shaped by their simplistic but mostly untrue dailey talking points, that even the NY Times, the last media outpost of so called objectivity cannot print REAL OBJECTIVE FACTS, about any story without offering Republican talking points as the other side of the real facts.
The right has managed to do this by repeating the mantra over and over again that any real facts, that don't give Republican talking points in opposition to real facts is liberal reporting. And the Times, CNN, CBS, NBC etc. have all fallen victim to this carefully planned strategy to get lies printed as possible conservative reality.
The right wing propaganda machine has an audience of probably 50 to 100 million listeners, viewers and readers dailey all consuming the exact same Republican spin on every issue in the form of the exact talking points, whether they come from Limbaugh, hannity, OReilly, Savage, Beck, Coulter, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Novak, Wills, Kristol, Brooks, Broder, The Heiritage Foundation, The Hoover Institute, The Cato foundation, Dobson, Robertson, all the evangelical preachers, and on and on. The Democrats have nothing even close to this.....e
I am a fan of abluevoice!! I would point out that Al Franken did a remarkable thing with his book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot," and by following up with attempts to fight back directly through trying to set up Air America.
If readers can possibly do so, please give Al a little help with his Senate race against Norm "the Chameleon" Coleman in Minnesota.
The only avenue that conservatives have left is talk radio and since that has been so effective, you libs(Dems) are talking about taking away the only voice we have through that piece of garbage called The Fairness Doctrine. You libs have had control of the press for over 40 years now. Don't forget that McCain/Feingold was passed primarily to keep the incumbents in power.
"libs" are THE true American's. Read our history! AMERICAN HISTORY!
This "conservat
Try thinking for yourself, it doesn't hurt.
effective? conservative? the republican party is being destroyed because its extremist right wing has had the biggest soapbox in the country and has used the uncontested repetition the monopoly allows to lie, distort, and attack. and when it's not prechewing talking points for the rest of the corporate media it is making excuses for the incompetence and criminality of those it supports. your talk radio monopoly would not last if it wasn't uncontested and couldn't lie anymore. and it is largely responsible for this whole bush disaster.
Wow, you actually believe that? Cause see, I'm a liberal, and I gotta say, I don't have a media outlet, since none of them are liberal. But I sure do see a lot of Cosnervative ones. Talk radio, Fox News, all the other cable news organizations, all the network news organizati
Who hasn't been afraid of the Conservatives? They have evolved into a pretty vile group. Angry, bitter, vindictive,revenge driven and scream at the top of their lungs. Add closed minded and staginant, and it understandable why taking them on has been avoided till now.
They've had their chance to shape our nation and it's a huge mess. We have to move past bitter and unyielding if we want to have a place in the future. We must leave conservative and liberal behind and just be Americans again. We will need all the courage and committment we can muster TOGETHER to get through these troubling times and move forward.
Can we do it?
What's even worse is that this NYT story completely omitted the circumstances surrounding McCain's divorce from his first wife, Carol. There's was a real connection to be made and they didn't do it. Here's what they didn't tell you: When McCain returned home from Vietnam he came home to a wife who had been disfigured in a terrible accident but a wife who was willing to stick by a seriously damaged and beat up husband. But instead of supporting his wife, McCain started cheating on her and was cheating on her when he met Cindy at a party. He and Cindy were involved in an affair when shortly thereafter McCain decided to file for divorce. And yes, Cindy was much younger than John at the time and came from a very wealthy family that could advance his current political ambitions.
Doesn't anyone else besides me notice the obvious physical similarities between Cindy and Vicki and that both are much younger than John McCain? I don't think this is just a weird coincidence either. Men like McCain don't change their spots.
So I will pose this question. If the same type of behavior toward their wives wasn't tolerated by the media for all of these male politicians: Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Guiiani, why is the media willing to overlook the same for John McCain? Because he's suppose to be a war hero?
What troubles me more is that McCain's POW status appears to have covered him in a media-proof jacket.
RJ Crane, topplebush
RJ you are spot on correct. I also noticed the similarities between the two women: apparently they are McCain's "type." And that McCain is a bastard just like all the other trophy women seeking men out there who view people as disposable props in the movie of their life.
I think also that Cenk nails it in this article. What we have here is the cowardice of too many journalists, both print and to be fair, broadcast as well, who are more afraid of being smeared by the Limbaughs of the world rather than do their job for the people of this country.
The TIMES also killed an investigative piece on that mysterious bulge on Bush's back during the debates w/Kerry--when W. paused as if listening to directions. Coincidentally, NEW YORKER ran a piece, unconnected to the debates, on the tailor who assembles W's suits (Clinton's as well) and that gentleman would not tolerate an unsightly suit coat.
In this case I think holding the story was good journalistic standards. When you come out with a story alleging an improper relationship, you better make damn sure you have enough to go on. The story isn't on Page Six, it's on the front page of the NY Times.
Doesn't it strike you as a little odd timing on the NYT's part? This is very old news. But since McCain's now the frontrunner, it must be time for the libs to go the attack as usual.
It's always time for liberals to go on the attack against the ignorance, greed and bigotry that is modern conservatism. But this story is hardly a "liberal" attack (not even an attack at all) and the NYT is only a fool's idea of a liberal media outlet.
The one love lasting love affair I've had in my life is with this paper. But I think I'm finally over it. I have to face up to it -- my paper of record cheerleaded for Bush while he was walking the country over a cliff. Then they took their sweet ass time exposing his complete disregard for our civil liberties. Just two weeks ago, while Obama was trying to catch up to Clinton they ran a front page feature reshashing old, old, news that had long been part of the public record about his teenage drug use (remember they were endorsing HRC). Now we find that they actually had some breaking news about McCain that they withheld until after he secured the nomination (remember they endorsed him too).
The NYT is a damn disgrace, and that's all there is to it.
Loading comments…
Posted February 21, 2008 | 03:55 AM (EST)