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

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[rh654]

If the McCain story is an example of the NY Times holding back a story - well we can all see why.

They released a story that McCain successfully countered and left most people saying "What the hell was the NY Times talking about".

If the NY Times doesn't have the goods to back up their story - they shouldn't be releasing them.

[LeftRight]

Yeah, just like the Washington Post shouldn't have run their story without PROOF!! Course, as we all learned about that tiny story known as Watergate......



And, by the way, turns out that they were correct about the potential coruption askpect of the story!

[LeBelAge]

This is a bang on analysis of the state of the NYT and America's media by the author.

[Plowboy]

The Times, like all our media, makes its money from advertisers. If you publish too much crap (i.e., whatever they don't like) then you don't get the money.

Deep Throat: Follow the money!

[NicoloM]

Cenk the NYT did not hold the stories for fear of being exposed as "liberal" media. The stories were withheld because the NYT is owned by wealth, very interested in remaining wealthy, even at the expense of the nation, as are all of the consolidated media. Which have framed the argument falsely with a catch phrase "liberal media" so we will joust at windmills.
If Bush's numbers are at 19% as you reported on your show, why wouldn't the NYT want a 81% market share, even if they were called "liberal".
The power of the media is really the power of framing the discussion, not the breaking of a story. When I try a murder I want to frame the argument "How heinous was the murder he commited." and since I go first, defense counsel is left whining, "you can't prove he was at this heinous horrible murder." So the jury is thinking about whether a heinous murder will be punished, even if it is a whodunit.

[LeftRight]

"The stories were withheld because the NYT is owned by wealth, very interested in remaining wealthy, even at the expense of the nation, as are all of the consolidated media. Which have framed the argument falsely with a catch phrase "liberal media" so we will joust at windmills."

Thank you! This is the real media, not some liberal wackos running around trying to give us all free healthcare!

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Maybe, maybe not...

It seems that this is quite a timely story now that McCain's campaign co-chair was just indicted on federal charges of extortion, money laundering and fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/rick-renzi-indicted-mcca_n_87974.html

Maybe it's perfect timing. If there's more to the story regarding McCain and the female lobbyist, then isn't it possible they were waiting until McCain was a done deal for the Republican nomination before the Times decided to release this story?

Now the Republicans are circling the wagons around McCain, but it may be too late if this story has any legs or a few more arrows.

McCain would not speak directly to the Times but was notified of this story and referred it to his lawyer. That indicates we have not heard the last of this lobbyist scandal.

[LeftLeaner]

and who does Rush Limbaugh and ALL the other self-proclaimed Conservatives ALWAYS blast for being the liberal rag, and enemy of the Conservatives, the NEW YORK TIMES.

It's like Nancy Pelosi playing nice w/Dumbya (Impeachment is off the table-less than 24 hours after the 2006 election), and, guess what, Nancy - he still SHITS on you.

Stop trying to make the Neocon Repigs and so-called Conservatives like you. They will NEVER be your friend!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!

JUST DO YOUR JOB - PRINT THE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chinampas]

It is very simple. They printed a story implying infidelity, and they have no hard proof. Two unidentified ex-employees. Give me a break. I would like to see the reaction from you guys if a conservative paper wrote an identical article about Obama. I am sure there would be protesters marching in the street the next morning.

[ihavenobias]

Yeah except that there's much harder evidence regarding the shady lobbyist angle rather than the less-relevant (but sadly more interesting to most Americans) sex angle.

That's the *real* story here.

[LeftRight]

Once again, the sex was only a small part of the story, and that people are glomming onto it is dishonest. What they have claimed is that there was a relationship (which can mean sexual, OR friendship) with this woman, and that the clients she represented appeared to get help from the Senator that people who weren't connected with her DID NOT get.... Hmmm, sounds like a little coruption to me....

[Democrab]

Seems to me the NYT article was written about the ease of lobbyists getting to McCain, not so much a sex scandal.

The masters of accusation, the vast right wing conspiracy, is spinning this article to be an unfair sex expose, something like they would dream up while spending lazy days in the halls of congress.

The Times never says that sex is the issue, but McCain's hypocrisy about lobbyists and special interests should be called to the mat.

I do, however, love to see them squirming in their seats!

[NewMexicoFan]

So Why is the LA Times holding their story. What ever happen to reporting the news, regardless, in support of Democracy, and your readers. I thought that the readers decided. I guess not. Again, America's leadership in Democracy is questionable. Remember in the recent past, a women reporter in Russia who was killed, and a journalist I think from Russian also who was poisoned? They gave their lives to report the truth. What has happened to our freedom of press. It looks like we are more interested in our salaries, our profit margins, and who likes us. Looks like there are some real journalistic heroes out there, but they do not live in America. Of course our selection of Leaders has and will suffer for it.

We need leaders that we know as much about as possible good and bad, not leaders who are formed by newspaper portals. Candidates being portrayed as perfect, and their flaws hidden do not allow the American People to really elect a leader. We are only allowed to elect someone that has been portrayed to us by the media.

[NEWSWOMAN]

We, the Public, are getting tired of this McCain debacle. Is he or is he not guilty of something? If he is, why don't they (The New York Times) print it? Otherwise, it is just rumor and why would a reputable newspaper print such a thing? Do they know something they are not talking about? That is not good journalism, making a potential libelous remark tnd then not backing it up with facts.

[LeftRight]

Yeah, and Clinton didn't get a BJ either..... AND, since then, the facts have amazingly showed up, and whaddaya know, they include the appearance of coruption!

[JudgeMoonbox]

I've been watching Republicans whine about the "Liberal media" for 38 years now, and I'm sure they were crying long before then. I think that Nixon's 1962 concession speech: "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore," was directed at the media that exposed his dirty tricks in his run for California governor.

The media has been bending over backwards so far they're Limbaugh dancing--hoping ol' Rush won't find something to whine about in the inch their shoulders are off the floor.

As for the Republicans, either they know it's the most pernicious lie of the post-Vietnam era--it makes the others possible--or they're masochistically begging to be humiliated (and the media, like the sadist in the old joke, say No.).

[BinBaldwin]

The New York Times needed to release the Rudy Story in Dec. Rudy was leading the pack. Thats why they held off on the McCain smear. What used to be a great paper is a disgrace these days. I read the financial section and use the rest for puppy paper.

[SonnyBono]

The New York Times is not afraid of the conservatives - they view the conservatives as part of the establishment and the New York Times is the primary mouthpiece for the establishment.

The owners of the NYT are part of the money based power structure in this country - they were just protecting their interests in looking out for McCain - the next version of Bush/Cheney. It is not a Us vs. Them with the NYT ownership - it is Us is Them, so they are very careful when they print something that might offend someone they play golf with - besides McCain is for everlasting war and war is good for business.

[aspen]

Let's face it we are all too intimidated by bullying conservatives, particularly right wing talk radio. Many Obama backers say they support him over Hillary, because she is essentially damaged goods. Damaged by whom, the rightwing media propagandists. The rest of us just cave into them.

[certainot]

right now right wing talk radio blowhards around the country are attacking the NYT, naming names, looking for some firings- a la Dan Rather. the NYT is getting blasted like any other media outlet that dares to criticize their sacred cows. and just a few days ago Mccain was the devil.

hannity just said he's not going to mention a utube post from a guy who says obama and edwards had an affair. because there was no evidence that obama and edwards are having an affair. no, he doesn't even know if the guy on utube who is saying obama and edwards are having affair actually knows whether edwards and obama actually had an affair. but he isn't going to repeat it.

this is shit he can't say on his TV show but he can repeat and talk about for the next six months without getting called on it.

another example of why we need a Fairness Doctrine ASAP

[jacknab]

Just one more thing we have to thank Ronnie Reagan for, the end of the Fairness Doctrine; and informercials.