Why Obama Hates The New York Times

Yesterday, The New York Times sniffed, "Is President Obama trying to muzzle his press corps?"

The obvious answer about this transparency-promoting president who keeps his daily schedule on Politico is inarguably, Yes. At least, he probably doesn't care enough about this New York Times reporter's feelings to reassure her that, 'No, it's not you, Honey, I called on three journalists from the White House press pool, then the Prime Minister has to call on his peeps, then we got the whole G-20 goin' on, you know how it is.'

In his press conferences, Obama has been leaving the press corps aghast by calling on journalists from smaller news outlets. Pressmen, not known for their benevolence, had likely been deriding these journalists until they started getting Obama's attention, such as Spanish-speaking Univision, U.S. Army newspaper Stars & Stripes, and the tres chic Huffington Post.

Here's a thought, New York Times: Maybe Obama's exercising the judgment he just showed by cracking the whip on GM and running Rick Wagoner out like the freeloader he is. Maybe Obama did not call on the New York Times because there are presently odds in Vegas as to whether or not the Grey Lady will even be around in June. With its debt rating junked at the start of the year, the New York Times needs to pony up $400 million by May. You know a good way to come up with $400 million dollars, New York Times? Never having bought About.com for $410 million! Well after the dot-com boom had faded to the stuff of funny urban legends, NYT saw a great opportunity in 2005 to buy the authoritative website on crap for the price of an impoverished nation.

As our erstwhile media paradigms' erosion surprises only the insulated editors and journalists who have assumed they are utterly crucial to our society, other smaller writers have not only gotten the story -- THEY'RE GETTING IT RIGHT.

It's not that I am still bitter about the New York Times role in our lead-up to the Iraq War, condoning the lack of sources Judith Miller tossed about in her love-fest with men with power, which was then used by the Bush Administration to shove those aluminum tubes up our ass. No, I'm still bitter about the Jayson Blair debacle, when an editor's favorite young reporter in the newsroom was turning in articles that were completely made-up, while this young man was drunk, high, and bipolar. Apparently the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalists at the storied paper couldn't put that together until a reporter who was plagiarized called to complain.

Or maybe Obama didn't call on this unlucky lady because he was avoiding more tacky questions from the NYT designed to appeal to the Right Wingers, who have long scoffed at the supposed liberal agenda of the New York Times (clearly without reading it), because conservative commentators have reliably bashed it for so long. (Hint to the NYT: You're not going to get Dittoheads' subscription money just because you sat on Air Force One and asked Obama how badly he wants to be a Socialist, or blow money on William "Always Wrong" Kristol.)

The NYT is probably also still hurt that Obama didn't give them a sit-down interview prior to his inauguration, because hey, other presidents did. They're probably also testy about their pay cuts, too, hence the inflated sense of urgency of "How could the President NOT ask me for the loaded question I need to lob at him to sound relevant??"

As Sarah Palin sneered about Katie Couric, "The world doesn't revolve around you." (Granted, Palin sounded seriously snarky, but then, so does the New York Times. What does that say?)

Indeed, the news from the New York Times has been reduced to the fact that they are not getting news.

UPDATE: Showing still greater hubris, NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller today announced, "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Comments

[glorialovelace]

How sad for the NY Times. Not.

But they are reaping what they are sowing. They used to be a great paper, but they have alienated a lot of their readership with pointless hit jobs disguised as "news." They have choked on their own idealogy and sadly, as a result of that they no longer have credibility.

They used to be the Gold Standard for newspapers. Today, even Tin Standard would be far too flattering.

[marketmann]

Speaking lack of substance or bias. You can't be serious with this piece. I read tons of high end media every day and seriously, the NYT along with NPR and PBS are the only reliable sources of information in the US. Ok, I'd throw in there the Washington Post in between days and even USA Today. What else is there? Rupert's rags (all of them, printed and broadcast)? I hope the NYT can get through these times of heavy consolidation, because I much rather get my information from some accountable source, accountable to some professional standards at least.

[glorialovelace]

The New York Times is NOT reliable. They distort as badly as Rupert does -- when they have an axe to grind, or somebody whose behind they need to kiss. What has happened to the New York Times is one of the great shames of our era.

[Tommy Schnurmacher]

here's your hat...whats your hurry?

[katielady]

has anyone considered all the attention former egelitarian presidents and heads of stuffy states paid to the huge newspaper chains, like the Telegraph in London, the LATimes, WaPost and NYTimes, don't you think this is going with our new president's style of considering others' questions??????????? I am glad attention is going to these other journalists and papers.

[metivo]

The NYT is only good for two things: The Arts section and Frank Rich.

[lagumbo]

NYT is now winning.When the print every lie and dirty they made up about PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST LADY I wouldn't give them any slack. They don't know what it is to go out, investigate a story and then print the truth. They print any and everything the right wingers want them too, so they can try to discredit OUR PRESIDENT, but it doesn't work, so the NYT should died just like the Republican Party.

[OliverTwist]

I stopped buying the NYT precisely because too many of the articles featured on important issues were biased and objectively incorrect and too many important stories were not covered. The NYT just doesn't provide value for money.

Too bad.

[jade7243]

Okay, perhaps Ms. Cooper has a memory problem, because I saw the President call on her at press conference during this trip. The President looked at his list, and said "Uh, Helene? Where's Helene?"

Ms. Cooper, an attractive black woman who writes for the NYT, stood up, said "thank you, Mr. President," and asked her question.

Enough with the whining already.

[John Wellington Ennis - Huffpost Blogger]

Phew! All is right in the MSM universe again. Will she retract her conjecture that Obama is muzzling the White House Press Corps now?

[John Wellington Ennis - Huffpost Blogger]

The headline to her latest article on the NYT Caucus blog:

"Obama Takes Charm Offensive to Young People"

As Bootsy Collins said, "Oh what a difference a day makes!"

[DennyCrane]

I hope the NYT dies off like the dinosaur that it is.

[glorialovelace]

Maybe we should start a betting pool as to if and when that will happen.

[SteveDenver]

So, Obama has to pay attention to BIG press outlets, or he's snubbing them.
Doesn't he know WHO THEY ARE? Their readership is undoubtedly bigger and whiter than, say, Spanish-language media.
I couldn't be prouder of Obama. Bush nightmares to untangle and repair, and now the egos of reporters and news outlets crying out against the injustice of being treated like everybody else.

[tailgateshirts]

just like big designers say Michelle is snubbing them.

The Obamas promoting small businesses and artists. the big guys have an office for that

[samilli3]

I like the NYT

[larry278]

You have my deepest sympathy. Courage, it will be a June of sorrow for you when the NYT folds.

[MPeter]

MSM. especially NYT do not understand Obama. When he said change was coming, NYT and the rest of them thought they were untouchable; that they would continue to be arrogant and to act like they are filters, part of the ruling class. Well, surprise, change has come not just to america but to MSM and especially NYT. NYT, CNN, FOX, WaPo can all scream till cows come home, but nothing will change. Obama's change is here.

[Rictracee]

YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN ... the MSM has been working hard to try to change the publics view of Obama since he won the election.. and nothing has change... so take that !!

[bernie12]

print newspapers began to crumble when the internet started to take off. it happened long before anyone had heard the name obama. this has nothing to do with the untouchables of the ruling class. this has to do with ad revenues and modes of communication. the death of print journalism is not a triumph of your political views. so you can stop the victory dance now.

[IndyReader]

Why would anyone pay $410 million for an on-line site? How would about.com have been beneficial to the NYT? I've gotten a couple of good recipies from that site, but geez, I wonder how this sale was justified to the NYT bigwigs?

[Foreground]

Maybe they just really LIKE pies?