Shame on the New York Times

For those not familiar with the details, here is what happened: Sean Hannity, in his role as mouthpiece for the McCain, or more precisely the Palin campaign, presented a documentary on Fox outlining Barack Obama's dangerous associations with "domestic terrorist" Bill Ayers. Yeah, yeah, I know, anybody that's likely to listen to Hannity is already for McCain so what's the big deal? The big deal is that the featured "expert" on Hannity's show was Andy Martin, also known as Andy Martin-Trigona. Martin is a well known anti-semitic crackpot in Florida (see Jason Linkin's piece on HuffPo from Oct. 6). We've come to expect this kind of thing from Hannity and Fox, but what the hell is with the New York Times?

This morning an article entitled "Obama Personal Ties Are Subject of Program on Fox News Channel" by Jim Rutenberg appeared in the Times. In the first sixteen paragraphs of the article, we learn that Martin is:

"...a conservative writer and frequent political candidate who is credited as being among the first -- if not the first -- to assert in a chain e-mail message that Mr. Obama was secretly a Muslim."

The Times then adds:

Mr. Obama is a Christian; his campaign says he "is not, was not and has never been" a Muslim.

Notice that the Times takes no position. Martin says Obama is secretly a Muslim. The Obama campaign "says" that he isn't. Then we are told that Martin:

...was careful not to present his theories about Mr. Obama as proven fact.

"That is my opinion -- expert opinion -- if you will," Mr. Martin said of his commentary on Mr. Hannity's program. "I don't pretend to be an exclusively fact-based reporter, though I try as hard as I can to get the facts."

These reassurances of Mr. Martin's "fairness" are accompanied by this "balance" to charges against Mr. Hannity:

It (the program) comes as one of Fox News's rivals, MSNBC, becomes increasingly liberal, with hosts like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann advocating against Senator John McCain.

It isn't until the sixteenth, and second to last, paragraph of the article that we are told:

Mr. Martin came under strong attack from liberals on Monday. Many noted that the Republican Party of Florida decided against backing his bid for the State Senate in 1996 after receiving documents from his Congressional race 10 years earlier in Connecticut listing the purpose of one of his political committees as "to exterminate Jew power in America and to impeach the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City."

Wow, talk about burying the lead. Sixteen paragraphs in we get the first mention of Andy Martin's avowed anti-Semitism. But then, with the final word, the Times offers yet more balance:

Mr. Martin had previously said the documents were forged, and again denied their authenticity on Monday. He also denied harboring anti-Semitic sentiment, saying "it's peripheral, it draws you away from the issue."

Wait a minute, did he deny his anti-Semitic sentiments or did he say they were "peripheral"?

In any event, the Times seems to be suggesting that there was one statement on ten year old "documents" that may have been forged linking Andy Martin to anti-semitism, when there is a long, documented history of it including court documents (see here).

Now the New York Times may be too genteel to state unequivocally that the main source for a major network documentary on "Obama Personal Ties" is a virulent anti-semite, but the Florida Sun-Sentinel, where they presumably know him better, had no qualms.

So, what's the upshot? Sarah Palin is now claiming that her charges that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" are merely comment on the "news of the day" as featured in.... The NY Times. Does this remind anyone of Dick Cheney citing his planted information in Judith Miller's NYT reporting to support his lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Fool us once, shame on you New York Times. Fool us twice, shame on you again.

Comments

[Michale32086]

For those of you who think Ayers was a "nice" terrorist, consider these two facts..

The people who died, fellow terrorists so no big loss, were blown up while constructing a nail bomb.. Now, as I have said, I have nearly a quarter century in the field and I can assure you with complete expertise that a nail bomb has only ONE use.. And that is to kill people.

Secondly, consider the story of John Murtaugh whose home was firebombed by Ayers and his fellow terrorists one cold Feburary morning WHILE THE FAMILY SLEPT...

The ONLY reason that no innocent people were ever killed is simply due to the fact that Ayers and his fellow terrorists were incompeten­t... Not from lack of desire to kill people.

Michale...­..

[hlhicks]

Again, what does that have to do with Barack Obama? Is McCain going to reject the endorsement of Mrs. Annenberg who also sat on that board? No one is arguing about Ayers, we are arguing about taking a tenuous connection at best and trying to link another US Senator to terrorism. Don't conflate the issues.

[Michale32086]

The connection is far from 'tenuous'.­..

There are social engagements, there are the sitting on the boards together..­. Now, there are reports that there is connections between Michelle Obama and Bernardine Dohrn all the way back to the 1980s.

Change "Ayers" to "Bin Laden" and then try and pooh pooh away the "connections" as tenuous..

Don't get me wrong. I am a confirmed and demonstrable Obama supporter.­. Which is why I am ADAMANT that he needs to get out in front of this..

Senator Obama can't diffuse the Ayres/terrorist issue by the mud-slinging negative politics of personal destructio­n...

The ONLY way that Senator Obama can diffuse this issue is by meeting it head on and fully disclosing the complete and full information. Not thru surrogates, not by cutesy little sound-bites, but by a frank, honest and FULL disclosure­...

That's the ONLY way that Senator Obama can get past this.

Michale...­..

[GKJames]

Mr. Rosen: The Washington Post ran into this some months back. And the editor responsible for spreading the same rumor had nothing but a lame explanation: we're not saying the rumor is true; we're just saying that people are spreading that rumor. It's junior high stuff that happens to go hand in hand with the NTY's insistence on bending over backward in the name of fairness. On the upside, the NYT probably isn't read by red-staters, its reality-based journalism being deemed too toxic.

dreamsmasher: wow. For what it's worth to you, the criticism of Bush in September 2001 had to do with the fact that Saudis in the U.S. were given a safe, unquestioned exit out of the U.S. at a time we had no clue as to any possible involvement in 9/11 itself. As for Obama's lies, can you cite one?

[Michale32086]

None of that changes the fact that there IS an association between Obama and the terrorist, Ayers..

Senator Obama needs to personally fully disclose ALL of the details of this association or else this will haunt him the rest of the election.

To put it into a context that John Q Public is thinking, change the name Ayers to Bin Laden. You can't tell me that no one would care about such an association, right???

Michale...­..

[craigary]

That's ludicrous, Michale. There's no comparison between Bin Laden and Ayers for one thing, one of them has spent decades trying to make amends for his behavior, and the other orchestrated an attack on the US and is still public enemy #1. What's more the "connection" between Obama and Ayers is beyond tenuous. Please read this article too while you're at it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/mccains-trumpets-endorsem_n_132954.html

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}
There's no comparison between Bin Laden and Ayers for one thing,
{{{{{{{{{

In your opinion.

In my learned opinion, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.­. I make no distinctions between "nice" terrorists and "mean" terrorists­...

{{{{{{{{{{{{
one of them has spent decades trying to make amends for his behavior,
}}}}}}}}}}}}

So?? Hamas builds schools and runs hospitals.­. Does that make them any less terrorists?? of course not..

}}}}}}}}}}}
What's more the "connection" between Obama and Ayers is beyond tenuous.
{{{{{{{{{{{

Sorry, the connection is quite solid...

I already support Senator Obama and do intend to vote for him.. I simply want Senator Obama to fully disclose that connection personally­..

Is that too much for an American Voter to ask???

Michale...­..

[kathy001]

You seem to be blissfully unaware of how sadly uninformed you are. Senator Obama has explained his association with Ayers. Put your fingers to some constructive use and look it up.

As for your description of Ayers as a terrorist, since you are insisting on details I suggest you keep yours straight. Ayers committed terrorist acts in the 1960s. Obama did not know him them and, at any rate, was only about 8 years old when Ayers was committing those acts. When he met Obama he was no longer conducting terrorist activities, had, in fact, completely changed his life, therefore he was and is no longer a terrorist.

And please don't even try to use the very lame, "once a terrorist, always a terrorist.­" You are talking to intelligent people here, not a bunch of "Joe 6-Packs."

[dreamsmasher]

Wah Wah Wah! no matter how you cut it it's still true.
Immediately after 9/11 the Democrats criticized George Bush (both) for having business and friendly relations with the Saudi royals, while this is absolute truth it is also racist simply because the idea that because a majority of the hijackers were Saudi it is a bad thing to be associated with anyone Saudi, the Democrats had no problem criticizing and condemning Bush for what they ASSUMED yet now the shoe is on the other foot and we have a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE who is friends with a KNOWN TERRORIST who is proud of his actions and is only saddened by the idea that he did not "do more", and now you and all the cry baby Democrats are crying foul and slander saying that these comments by Palin and McCain are "offensive". Well it is not foul, slanderous or offensive when it is true and it is provable, if anything this shows how much Obama will lie to get what he wants!

[craigary]

Thanks for the run-on sentence.
Now then: 1) Obama is not BFF with Ayers. This has been debunked over and over again. Ayers, also, has spent decades trying to atone for his past.
2) If we want to drag things into the mud, how about Sarah Palin's "palling around" with a witch doctor, and her husband Todd's legitimate friendship and membership with the Alaska Independence Party, who want to secede to the union. One of Todd Palin's friends has actually used threatening language repeatedly about the government of the United States. They have a much more direct connection than Obama does with Ayers.
3) There's so little substance and so much in the way of childish insults in your post that there's really no point in responding further. How about talking about the REAL issues here? Or are you too busy being mesmerized by Fox News' "reporting" that you're confused by the facts and issues?

[Michale32086]

No one with more than 2 brain cells to rub together thinks that Obama is "pals" with the terrorist, Ayers..

However, there IS a connection there.. There IS an association there..

And Senator Obama needs to fully and completely disclose the exact relationship that exists...

Michale...­..

[jadeba]

You're right, the association between Palin and the Alaska Independence Party is by far more damning and serious. But, dreamsmasher (how appropriate for a McCain supporter) and Michale are trying to make much ado about nothing because it's all they have left. And, it isn't working. On to more important things - that they cannot win on - like the economy. Like foreign policy and the war. Rick Davis said this wasn't going to be about issues (he knew they couldn't win on issues) so they've made it personal. Unfortunately for them, they have candidates who can't win that battle either.