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.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Comments

[CatfishJohn]

....the abomination that was judith miller's sycophantric reporting, polyanna- supreme thomas friedman, and now bill kristol's idiot wind appearing regularly---- and the NY Times is liberal????? ....just becuase the "Junior Goebbels Society" of Limbaugh, Hannity the Dunce, Savage, Reagan Jr. , "White Hood" O'reilly say it's so????....­same thing for their allegedly ( and perhaps once, long ago) liberal cousin the Washington Post that regularly features misanthrope Charles Krauthammer who never met a working class persons problem he didnt have snarling contempt for....

[Lemeritus]

"and the NY Times is liberal?????"

Did anyone believe it ever was? Welcome to The Myth of the Liberal Media, brought to you by Republican Pravdas everywhere.

[hopeless277]

When all the media outlets are OWNED by conservatives, it's very difficult not to be controlled by conservatives. And actually, if you want to be accurate, they are not conservatives at all, they are facists. Look it up in the dictionary.

[lisakaz]

I agree. I just said this elsewhere essentially: they're a long way from Fearless.

[Kane]

This just in: The NY Times is affraid of conservatives.

The entire media is affraid of conservatives! The media is so affraid of being called liberal, they are willing to sell a war based on lies to the American public.

It's no accident that in the past eight years, White House reporters have been widely criticized for their dictation.

[Lemeritus]

When did "liberal" become a dirty word? And why?

[BigTuna]

I remember Reagan using it as a derogatory term, although I've never heard it used with the level of contempt that the GOP candidates have recently. I kinda feel embarrassed for the people that use it with a sneer.. they seem so childish.

Look up the name Frank Luntz for lots of info on the GOP's War on Words.

[Skunk7]

When liberal became associated with desegregation. Until the 1954 supreme Court Decision outlawing segregated schools, all one had to do to stop a white person from supporting the rights of non-whites was simply say "n....r lover" and most whites would cower and be controlled. But, after the Warren Liberal Court, all you had to do for the same effect was to say "liberal".

[GuiltyUndertaker]

It became a dirty word when the right-wing realized it was the only way to win. The right cannot engage liberalism in a wrestling match of ideas and expect to win, so it poisons the well for us. George W. Bush is nothing but the highest achievement of the right-wing conspiracy that has been in existence from the day William Buckley founded the National Review.

[BushisLiar]

Not afraid, controlled. Just look at who owns the corporate media in this country, it is the very same corporations that are profiteering from the wars and every other boondoggle being perpetrated on the American public by the Bush/Republican crime syndicate.

[simplysimon2]

Thanks, Cenk. Accept this pat-on-the-blog as applause for saying what's so rather than what's said through smoke and mirrors.

[paixa3]

ditto, thank you for this poste and thank you Cenk for the blog.

We need to start ATTACKING the MSM every moment of the day.

They are dangerous, disingenuous shills.

[adzeman]

The story was assaulted by Macs lawyers. I think there is much more to this story that they didn't print because of fear. But expect it all to come out. I think they (properly)fear the hit he takes from his coziness with people coming before his committee. So much for the straight shooter.
Just another GOP hack with his hand in the cookie jar.

[fcrooster]

This New York Times McCain story has no legs still: no specifics and no named sources; plus, McCain already held a press conference and denied each supposed allegation. And yet the media "talking heads" blab on and on about it.

A story that does have legs, however, is Billy O'Reilly's Michelle Obama "lynching party" remark on his radio show yesterday as reported by Media Matters and Keith Olbermann's Countdown. Where's the outrage there?

I wrote Fox News saying Bill O'Reilly should apologize publicly and then be fired because, besides his documented racism, he has learned nothing from President Bush's recent White House Black History Month speech or the Imus storm before that.

[rjean]

bill oreilly isnt going to be fired anymore than that slime keith blubberman is.....ore­illy backs up what he says
keithiepoo just flat out LIES

[Bozwellian]

uh, rjean, that was sarcasm on your part, right ? MR O'r has been NAILED numerous times for "getting things INCORRECT / VASTLY WRONG and more where KO, DOES back up his "blubbering" with factuals and for some, indeed they are way too accurate for some have an innate fear of the TRUTH preferring sugar coatings and rosified as well as villificationaries to demonize those one simply can NOT allow to be found honestly truthful/accurate and etc for it bursts their bubblized viewpoint/­mindsettin­gs/etc.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

You mean Dild O'Reilly?

More GOP hypocrasy.

[SEQUOIABISON]

The Newspaper of Record is not so much afraid of being called too liberal by conservatives, this may have been true in the old days before our involvement in the middle east, but now they have become almost as conservative as Rush Limbaugh.

They now have an editorial board that endorsed the two most pro Israeli, pro war candidates running, Hillary and McCain.

The days when the NY Times could be considered Liberal are long past, that was an era when they were supportive of civil rights at home but once our attention turned to the middle east, their loyalty to Israel superseded any pretense of being fair and balanced, I give you Judith Miller as exhibit A.

I give you Thomas Friedman as exhibit B, they have beat the drum for war in Iraq, because they thought it might be helpful for Israel.

So the conservatives who still lambaste the Times as Liberal have not read this rag sheet since they were courageous advocates for civil rights, now they are cowardly racists for Israeli Imperialism.

[DennyCrane]

Be careful. You might get labeled anti-semitic. That happens anytime you criticize the influence of Israel on our government and media. AIPAC is one reason I will never support Hillary. I want a President who'll be loyal to the U.S. first, not put the interests of Israel before us.

[JJinWI]

If Israel is the case for not voting for the Clintons, than I guess Obama is out, too.

You're absolutely correct about the labelling.
Any opposition to Israel's lobbying automatically gets you branded as anti-semitic.

[TXfemmom]

Couldn't have put it better myself. They let the McCain bunch bully them just like the Bush/Cheney thugs have done. The Times hasn't learned anything from that, have they?

All these groups were digging, and none of them would have put themselves out there with this story, without having the goods. They are going to be hammered, when the conservatives didn't whimper when the media repeated all the unvarified claims of the Swift Boaters without abandon.

This is just more indication of how the extreme Conservatives have whipped the media into submission and then claim they are liberal.

McCain had to be fought by his own staff on this, and then continued with his behavior, and that is the what one should concentrate upon. Whether he was playing hanky panky with her and didn't get money, he obviously did her bidding, and took money from many of her clients, if not directly from her. The man may actually believe his own hyperbole, but he has demonstrated over and over with Keating and many other things, that he is arrogant, stubborn, has too high an opinion of his decision making, and has painted a picture in his mind that he is above reproach in everything, when it simply isn't so.

We don't need another arrogant, self-absorbed loonie who cannot be objective and see their actions and behavior for what they are. Bush has virtually destroyed the country, and as one pundit said, that if the world hates Bush and thinks they can't deal with him, and finds him arrogant, then wait till they get a load of McCain.

[elkabong]

If you thought that McCain was a wise man

Uncorrupted by lobbyist taint,

Take a gander at young Vicki Iseman

And quit thinking she is what he ain't.

[gopindrag]

If I'm campaigning against McCain this fall, I run the quote, "John McCain is a true conservative," under that picture of John the old man embracing W and kissing his cheek. The words are true, the picture rings true.

[Bozwellian]

LOL, thats THE picture that needs to be plastered on billboards COAST TO COAST and on barnsides, mobile units and gotten into all faces for a "minder" of what would come with a McC Presidente !!!

[jrockbg]

Ever since Dan Rather torpedoed his career by substituting partisanship with journalism, every major media outlet has been extra careful. You need to complete the phrase:

They are afraid of conservati­ves.....be­cause they've been caught too often being unfair in their reporting of stories that are negative of conservatives.

[Filinbills615]

Did you read the article? I think one could make the argument that Dubya never would have been elected in 2004 without the complicity of the NYT.

And do I even need to mention Judith Miller?

[Bozwellian]

LOL, always amazed how kowtowed/doubled over LIBERALS get when CALLED "LIBERAL".­..uh, even the dictionary makes it obvious WHY one should hold head HIGH in being so labled yet for some reason, many cringe at such tagging. It was LIBERALS who got this country separated from King George and devised an outlandish idea of running a country FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE , who took the bodacious move to create a republic formulated on DEMOCRACY.­..Conserva­tives prefer a rigid envrionment where ONLY their positions are allowed to flourish and all others are told regularly, if not content with such status quo, LEAVE the country and go elsewhere and etc. As for the NYT, LOL, have NOT considered them THE liberal source for long time, and Rathers mistake was mismanagement of the info that WAS far more factual than how finally spun and MOST rather DO realize that but there was a real thirst to hang him(Rather), too much of a "maverick" in too many ways for the conservative groupies that have truly had a long run at running the showtime. The WP has whimped out as well and with media in the hands of but 5 or 6, things are NOT likely to get much better in the near future. TG for internet access that allows for international resources to report/etc , at least we have some slim pickings there and available.

[realpolitic]

Yes, conservatives have vey long memories. The figure representing their party is an elephant, after all. A journalist who writes a story criticizing a conservative insider sooner or later will face the inevitable character assassination tactics of Republicans. Sometimes they even eat their own, as Limbaugh tactics on McCain illustrate. All Bush critics have faced this onslaught from Joe Wilson to Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill and others.

[DemandTruth]

Another example of the bullying and secrecy tactics employed by Republicans. Another way I believe McCain will be even WORSE than Bush as President. We've now got yet another story of witnesses REFUSING to testify in cases of abuse of government power (Ashcroft n' Christie). And now here's McCain bullying a paper to keep information from the public.

If he wins, we might as well give up on ever getting ONE scrap of information about what our government is doing to us in our names.

I'm waiting to see if the MSM can spin this one into "it's all Bill Clinton's fault" again!

[Bozwellian]

Uh, all wailing that McCain would abuse the INTIMIDATION factor that has become so deriguer in regards to how the media ops (and decides WHO gets what access to WHO/what/e­tc...) , NOT so sure that the Clinton TEAM would NOT abuse as well..Thin­k whoever gets "power" has a tendency to control what info/etc gets out and about but after these conservative years of establishing control (and OWNERSHIP OF THE MEDIA OUTLETS) , not any too sure WE THE PEOPLE can figure WE THE PEOPLE are accessing anything truly akin to a FREE PRESS to provide the NECESSARY INFO that allows a DEMOCRACY to function in the PEOPLES BEST INTERSTS first and foremost !!!
(there is what ONE major WIRE SERVICE these days, and fewer "reporters" , truly fewer who are NOT tied to need of corporate salary/etc so, well, ...uh, not exactly a set up IN OUR (the peoples)FAVOR and etc !!!!

[robertlockwoodmills]

The Times is afraid of being called "liberal" by conservatives? That might have been true 20 years ago, when conservatives were in charge. It even might have been true before 2006. Now Bush is at 19% approval, and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. No need to be afraid any longer. Liberalism is O.K. again.

It's CORPORATISM, Mr. Uygur. Every big-city paper in the country, bar none, is part of a media conglomerate. The liberal/co­nservative model doesn't apply. The New York Times thinks first of its advertisers and stockholders, who would be mighty pissed if they told the truth about why we invaded Iraq, or the truth about 9/11, or how two presidential elections were stolen...o­r anything that would cause a stock market implosion or chase advertisers away.

[martinspringfield]

It's not corporatism. It's fascism. It's cronyism. It's oligopolistic neofeudalism.

The enemy is not corporatism. Corporations are just a legal construct that protect individuals from bankruptcy. The Nation, Air America, probably Huffpo etc. etc. are corporations, as are most small businesses, and those that are not use legal fictions that are equivalent.

The US media are something else entirely. They are the product of fascism masquerading as "free market capitalism". Instead of using government to enforce competition, the US govt from Reagan on down has engaged in "deregulation" which leads to consolidation. Hence you have one or two choices where once you had many. America is a land of strip malls populated over and over by the same phony 2 choices, and our media are worse because to obtain "access" and achieve further deregulation they will suck up to the deregulation party always.

Call it what it is: fascism. Don't let them hijack "corporate" the way they have "Christian". It's too hard to be against things that the vast majority like. It's like calling letting them poison "medicine" and then railing against medicine.

[texascommonsense]

Conservatives probably stopped that story about Clinton raping Juanita Brodrick also..... those rasically conservatives, what are you going to do with them??

[Henry]

I think you are right about this.

[LeftRight]

They are also concerned about the fact that almost all of the media conglomerates that own them are run by very conservative men. VERY conservative men. If they piss off the boss, they are afraid of losing their jobs, just like the rest of us are.

As regards the thought that the media has a liberal lean, that's never been true. Granted, most reporters tend to be more liberal, since they are not only more educated, but they also tend to know more people, especially the kind of people that conservatives are afraid of. HOWEVER, most editors and publishers tend to be more conservative, since they tend to rise to those positions through ambition, which is more of a conservative point of view, AND they tend to make more money, which tends to make a person more conservative, since they want to preserve the status quo.