Did the New York Times Gets Played By Clinton's Campaign?

Here's the kind of coverage a campaign can't buy, from the New York Times blog (UPDATE: The post has been altered since we wrote this and a new paragraph's been inserted - but without noting the change or acknowledging the original oversight. See below):

A fundraising analyst, Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, said this morning that the Clinton fund-raising total is likely to convey an impression of superiority to voters than Mr. Obama will have to battle against.

"Clinton's blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters," Mr. Panagopoulos said. "It will give the impression of growing Clinton strength -- both in terms of dollars and number of donors."

"Obama also raised impressive sums," he added, "but he may be seen as languishing relative to previous quarters. Obama's lackluster third quarter intake, relative to previous quarters, reflects, at least in part, waning enthusiasm for his candidacy and diminishing prospects for an Obama victory."

Wow. Pretty damning indictment of Obama's prospects, wouldn't you say? But here's something Patrick Healy, the author of the post, fails to inform his readership. From Mr. Panagopoulos' bio page on his website:

Dr. Panagopoulos was selected by the American Political Science Association as a Congressional Fellow during 2004-2005, and he served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).

That should have been worthy of at least a mention, don't you think? After all, Mr. Panagopoulos describes Obama's campaign as "lackluster," "languishing," and suffering from "waning enthusiasm" and "diminishing prospects."

Mr. Healy should have asked whether his expert had ties to the Clinton campaign. failing that, Mr. Panagopoulos should have volunteered the information - even if this is his truly unbiased opinion.

Oh - and, for the record, the Panagopoulos bio doesn't say that he's a "fundraising expert," although he may well be. The subject's not even mentioned. This raises the question of how Mr. Healy found him in the first place. Was it a referral from Clinton's campaign? His readers deserve a clarification and explanation.

One last item: The Times piece says that "in recent weeks Clinton advisers and donors had asserted that he was probably on track to beat her again because his campaign was publicizing his success at recruiting new donors." Isn't that the old Rove trick of lowering expectations when you know you're going to do well?

Just a thought.
____________________________________

UPDATE: Mr. Healy's blog entry was altered some time after we posted this. This paragraph was inserted between the "Clinton's blowin' 'em away" quotes and the "Obama's lackluster" quotes:

Mr. Panagopoulos worked in Mrs. Clinton's Senate office in 2004-5 as a congressional fellow of the American Political Science Association; he said he is not supporting or advising her or any other candidate in the 2008 race.

It's common practice when blogging to note such changes and corrections, to avoid the appearance that you're trying to mislead your readers. The post as originally written would not have noted this analyst's potential conflict of interest.

And we still don't know how Mr. Healy found him in the first place. As Atrios would say, "time to convene a blogger ethics panel."
____________________________________

... and Patrick Healy emailed me to say the following:

In answer to your question, I met Mr. Panagopoulos last year when I spoke to a different professor's Fordham class on politics and fundraising. He gave me a business card and we talk from time to time. I found him thoughtful about politics and fundraising, and he has been quoted in several papers before ... I asked him in the interview today if he was advising or supporting any candidates. He said no. I asked Clinton advisers; they said he wasn't on their team. I checked fundraising records; he has not donated to her or any other candidate. Still, after I received email about his congressional fellowship in 04-05 from folks who had a concern about Mr. Panagopoulos and bias, I added the graf about his ties to Clinton's Senate office.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[TheKiddy]

The NYTimes has been played and is playing. Their bias toward Clinton in their reporting, and after that Obama (see today's adoring issue) has made them cheerleaders not interlocutors.

[costas]

Can you please reverse the order of my two previous postings? The intended order is reversed.

Dr. Costas Panagopoulos

[costas]

If I did have an association with a campaign, I would have reported it explicitly and I would have gone on record as a supporter or as an adviser to a candidate. Given the lack of such an association, there is no reason I should not be able to provide credible, impartial and objective evaluations. I note, moreover, that Mr. Healy chose to exclude me from his follow-up piece that appeared in the printed version of the Times the following day, most likely to avoid any speculation about my integrity as an analyst. Instead, he chose to quote, among others, Michael Malbin, a competent analyst and colleague who directs the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington D.C. and who I respect considerably. I note that you do not question his inclusion or the integrity of his comments (which reach essentially the same conclusions my remarks did) despite the fact that Dr. Malbin served as a speechwriter to Vice President Dick Cheney while he was Secretary of Defense (1989-1990). I have no doubts about the integrity of Dr. Malbin"s views despite this association. The fact is many scholarly experts have had experiences working for political figures or organizations. Such experiences do not preclude them from offering objective insights based on their areas of expertise. I am appalled you do not acknowledge this in your criticism. I add that I am especially disturbed that you implicate Mr. Healy who I consider to be a top-rate journalist and whose standards for fair and ethical reporting appear to me, at least, to be of the highest quality. If only all journalists could be so competent and so capable.

[costas]

I am quite perturbed by Mr. Eskow"s baseless indictment of Patrick Healy"s use of my quote in a recent posting in the New York Times. In the article, Mr. Healy quotes my assessment of the impact of the third-quarter campaign fundraising totals reported recently by the Democratic campaigns. I offered this analysis in my capacity as a political scientist at Fordham University and as a national and widely-recognized expert in campaigns and elections, voting behavior and campaign finance. I speak regularly to members of the press to offer perspectives based on my expertise on developments in political campaigns. I offer balanced and honest evaluations. As Mr. Eskow accurately points out, I have served as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Ms. Clinton"s Senate office in Washington in 2004-2005. The fellowship is designed to expose academics to the practical aspects of the legislative process on Capitol Hill. I benefited tremendously from the insights I distilled from the experience, and I am grateful that Ms. Clinton allowed me to work in her office. I make no effort to hide this connection. Since then, however, I have had no affiliation with her campaign or, as Mr. Healy points out, with any presidential campaign currently underway. Your suggestion that I deliberately provided a biased view is groundless. Moreover, the assertion that Ms. Clinton"s campaign guided me to provide biased commentary to media outlets is similarly baseless and false. I would not, under any circumstances, compromise my professional or scholarly integrity to espouse views that are biased when speaking to the press as an expert.

[plutorage]

It seems to me that the NY Times has been unabashedly proHilary and I don't think they even try to hide it. I think they want Hilary to know that they have been extremely biased in her favor.

How could anybody who reads the Times think otherwise.

[duboisist]

From his bio:

RJ Eskow ... held senior-level positions at several major insurance carriers and has served as CEO of two companies. ... He specializes in health and medical issues...

Besides writing for The Huffington Post, he maintains his own blogs: ... and The Sentinel Effect for healthcare-related issues.

Does this mean what RJ Eskow wrote was HIS HONEST OPINION based on his life experience or do it mean HE HAS TO BE UNFAIRLY BIASED?

Either, both, or neither could be true. There isn't enough information to tell which is true.
I think under these circumstances, it would be unfair to simply state the fact that there POTENTIALLY could be bias without providing evidence that suggests it is LIKELY.

It's theoretically possible that RJ Eskow is a Nobel Laureate or a serial killer, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that it is any more likely to be true about him than it is true about the vast majority of people, including myself.

[alx8413]

the total number of democrats and independants who will not vote for hrc totals enough to elect and independant

[RuthieM]

The Clinton's are following Karl Rove think tank, isn't he on their payroll. But wait a minute -- what about that the Hsu and bundler monies were all part of this quarter Clinton's $27 million haul, that it had to be included(?)(?)(?). So what are her REAL numbers?

[bringbackimus]

On Oct 3, 2007 the NYT placed a Patrick Healy report above the fold on the front page. The title of the report is the harsh: CLINTON STEALS OBAMA'S FUND-RAISING THUNDER. Yet, on the Times web site the same report by Healy is titled: CLINTON SURPASSES OBAMA IN FUNDRAISING.
Was the harsher and slanted version printed on the front page, instead of the softer titled report? Both reports appear to be identical. Was it the news editors at NYT, or Healy himself?

[bklynsam]

Ever notice how Hillary supporters use the phrase 'Hillary Haters' the same way freepers call people against bush 'bush haters' ?-- you know, it's not that we have legitimate reasons for being against her(him) it's all because we are filled with 'hate'.

When Hillary's campaign experessed admiration for Rove and his tactics and proudly proclaimed that they intended to adopt them, I was hardly surprised. You can see the similarities in their campaigns and in the tone of their supporters.

I could care less what the 'media' says. They've been proverbial lapdogs for this past administration, were eager propagandists for the 'swiftboaters' of Kerry and Gore, and were instrumental in pushing this war based on lies. It is up to each and every individual to cut through the spin and political gamesplaying to really inform themselves. You can tell by the comments here, who have the facts, and who could care less what the facts are as long as their candidate wins.

[Superfelo]

bklynsam,

I dont know why anyone still bothers to read the "Gray Old Lady", a very apt name for the N.Y. Times. It masquerades as a liberal newspaper; but it is really the "Pravda" of goverment. Does anyone remembers Judy Miller;
their gloating when the duly elected president of Venezuela was deposed, and had to be brought back because of the clamoring of the people? Their glory days are gone, which go back to when they published the "Pentagon Papers."
All they have done lately is shill for the powers that be.

[LIR]

I have no problem with describing Obama's campaign as "lackluster," "languishing," and suffering from "waning enthusiasm" and "diminishing prospects."

So a Hillary person says this...but it so happens to be the truth...Obama lovers may not want to hear it, but at some point they are going to have to wake up to reality!

Say buh bye to Obama's campaign...I am telling you now...going....going...gone!

[Superfelo]

LIR, another believer in "if you repeat something enough times, it becomes reality."
You do not know what happened at the rally, and the 25,000 that showed up? Obama is the new and we love him to life.
You must be a lobbyist; since you love Hillary so much, who reminded us that "lobbyists are people too." And you must be a "people."
Thanks for sharing.

[JimR]

Just curious, how much is the Clinton campaign paying you?

[kimk3]

"Clinton's blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters"

Yeah, the psychological effect it has on me is to make me like her even less. And I didn't much like her and her hawkish and unprogressive voting record before. Big deal, she sucks harder on more corporate you know whats.

[Boadicea]

Amazing how well the MSM hides the fact that Obama has actually raised quite a bit more money than Clinton has for the primary.

Considering that Clinton's support is much more well-heeled than Obama's, the truth is that Obama has done a remarkable job of fundraising.

[mediamarv]

Please remember tht the MSM or corporate media, can only handle two viewpoints of a story. Us-them, Obama-Clinton, red-blue. Once AP has told everyone what the frame for the story is, the stenographers fall into line.
Their version is always the horse race, no subtilties allowed.
IMHO

[philss]

hilliary hilliary hilliary
all she is is bush in a dress
another war monger
anyone who believes she will get us out of iraq is folling themselves and gambling with the lives of all our soldiers
for our country's sake I hope the electorate wakes up soon

[coolkraft]

business as usual for HIllary Clinton...and the dirty tricks have only just started....sound familiar...she gets more and more like Bushie every day

[asl3676]

Never underestimate the lunacy and paranoia of Clinton haters.I like the fact that Clinton haters are bipartisan and,it appears, bipolar.

[John]

To criticize Clinton's policies or tactics is not equivalent to hating her. When you use this kind of word play, you are attempting to reduce all discussion to the level of the Jerry Springer Show. There are legitimate criticisms that can be made rationally and logically. Just as there are legitimate defenses that could be made in the same way.

Just as we have been dumbed down as a society, bringing emotion into every discussion is bringing this country down,

[Old time Dem]

What a lot of nonsense! No wonder most of the common folk in America are simply fed up.

Most of the regular folks I talk with say they will decide for themselves who they will vote for and they don't want Hillary shoved down their throats by the media or anyone else.

I do have to tell you though that in addition to the younger crowd, a lot of the Baby Boomers are moving to Senator Obama's camp.

[asl3676]

"The common folks are fed up"? Did you do take a survey or do you just watch Jack Cafferty on CNN who also appears to be an expert on the thinking of the "common folks".

[TheKiddy]

I think there are baby boomers supporting Obama who are excited about a Black candidate for president. I think there are baby boomers supporting Obama that read the newspapers and these forums and based on what they read believe the race is between Clinton and Obama even though the lead in Iowa may go to Edwards --and there are plenty of votes out there for Richardson. I believe that this election will likely be won by someone whose "right" to be president is accepted but not articulated - like the rights of kings, but we don't say it because we are supposed to be a republic without a divine ruler. I am a baby boomer and I am supporting John Edwards. My Gen X son likes Gravel. It is October. For heavens sakes!

[Swift2]

Oh, please. Patrick Healy has written more hysterical, ill-informed items about Hillary, particularly of the panty-sniffing variety. Of course he'll swing both ways. If Obama races into the lead, look for his tired, idiotic writings to lambaste him. He's of the idiot MSM variety.