Snort-worthy NYTimes quote of the day
I pointed out this quote from Bill Keller last December. In light of the NYT’s McCain rehash, I thought you’d appreciate reading it again. Remember, put your beverages down first:
…we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a preconceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.
The Times’ front-page hit piece of innuendo-filled trash-and-rehash exposes the Grand Canyon-sized gap between Keller’s rhetoric and reality.
***
For what it’s worth, here’s Keller’s defense of the McCain piece.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain, New York Times
TigerHawk
» Markets, Obama, goose, ganderPower Line
» An appeal not to appealJustOneMinute
» James (Not Earl) Jones As National Security AdviserBelmont Club
» 2025Patterico
» New York Times: Secretary of State ClintonRiehl World View
» Observations: Hank Paulson On A PlaneWeekly Standard
» A Run on Guns, Just in Time for the HolidaysStop The ACLU
» Hillary Clinton Will Say Yes to Secretary of State Job
In the event of air sickness, you will find bags in the pocket on the seatback in front of you. Please use these bags, and notify your flight attendant when you are done. Thank you.
If that’s the truth, then I have a piece of beachfront property to sell you in Phoenix.
Bill forgot his “/sarc”, me thinks…
This is patently laughable. Just this week in reaction to a NY Times Editor’s Blog item, I discovered through some basic research the group they based their story on was replete with former Clinton administration officials.
Did they disclose this?
Uh, no, they didn’t.
Bill Keller is a prime candidate for being “Swift-Boated.”
The only thing there I believe is when he says they don’t serve a “Country.”
Explain this for me, NYT…
Then why do you constantly shill for the Dems, attack Christians, and disclose classified information on the GWOT?
Then why did you let Moveon.org print that full page ad tearing apart Gen. Petraeus and slandering him?
Then why do you give out endorsements? If you don’t have an agenda, then why are you losing readers, advertisers, and staff?
If you don’t work for any entity of country, then why are you seeking to leak classified info that helps terrorists?
Not only is your explanation weak it is delluded. Liberals are really in a world of their own.
This from the bird cage liner that ran 50+ front page expose pieces on abu ghraib “scandal”. And of course is adored by the literati. I believe nothing they publish under the guise as news that in reality is op-ed. The sad fact is that just because you don’t subscribe does not mean that the herds of other newpapers and TV news doesn’t print their slime as fact. Pity that Pinch, keller and the rest of that traitorous crew can’t just do the anatomically impossible. And they have the gall to call asking for subscriptions? not bloody likely.
The NYT seems to be doing something that no one else has been able to do:
Make McCain more sympathetic to the Republican base. Hmmm, may be they’re Republican shills after all,
And really smelly fish. Does anyone smell a rat?
Bill Keller says: emphasis mine
Yes they did. I believe McCain called you a liar, Bill. You should get out more and quit reading only the
front pagefunny pages of the NYTAs media digest the recent John McCain sex scandal allegations by the New York Times, one side of the story seems destined to get ignored: one of the four co-authors took money from a liberal activist group to fund a hit piece about Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.) in 2006.
There simply aren’t words to describe Keller’s arrogance. Remember he openly admitted disclosing classified information to undermine President Bush’s GWOT. He claimed he it was his responsibility to counter the duly elected POTUS.
Unbelievable!!!! What a joke!
A question for Mr. Bill Keller:
Why did your newspaper endorse John McCain for the primary election?
snort
You would have to (how’s that go?) “suspend disbelief” to believe anything the NYT says.
I’ve asked before…why is that propaganda RAG considered a newspaper?
P.S.
I’m still not voting for him.
NYT: “We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda.”
There were NO facts available to manipulate or hide.
look anyone who takes the NYT’s staff and/or editors seriously needs a good shakin’. i sure wish, since they had this back in december that they would have printed BEFORE the Idiot Party started voting this guy as their candidate. this must be the ‘hit piece’ mentioned that McCain bribed/begged them not to print back in December. I faintly remember there being mention of a scandulous report to come out by the NYT, but they were holding back.
Even if the allegation of the ’sexual’ appearances of the link between said lobbyist is not true, there still is an underlying truth to McCain’s pandering to special interests and lobbyists. He was a part of the Keating 5, and wasn’t he the only Republican in that group? Once again, McCain’s affinity towards the democrats and ‘reaching’ across the isle. This guy’s ethics stink in my book even without the NYT printing this article. That is the real story, this man’s thought processes scare me as does the Liberal NYT.
Yeah Work, I said the same thing a couple of weeks ago, however; I am changing my mind as I just can’t stand to think of Clinton or Obama sitting in the Oval Office. At least McCain will not cut and run from Iraq and the War on Terror. If we are not going to defend America then all the rest of it doesn’t really matter.
In some devious way, do you think this will help McCain among conservatives? I mean, having your integrity called into question by the NY Times is a pretty good thing, right? Since we all know how far we can trust THEIR ethics…
NYT…all the news that’s fit to line a birdcage with…perfect camouflage…it’s black and white, and it stinks!
It’s a newspaper in the same sense that Pravda was a newspaper.
It doesn’t surprise me about this quote, Michelle. That’s the way they have been for years. They’re the “National Enquirer” of the news. Worthless information by a disoriented staff. Ethics don’t mean a thing. Selling papers is. They haven’t realized that more and more people are getting wise to them. Subscriptions are falling. Cutbacks in staff. You know, when I was overseas, the NYT was the main paper to buy…a look at home. But, that was back a long time ago, when it had credibility.
McCain should add to the list of things to do on the first day in office. Issue a finding that as a fact for the guidance of all federal bureaucrats the NYT does not meet the standards of journalistic ethics sufficient to justify credentialing them with press passes to attend functions. He should then direct that no government money be expended to purchase or subscribe to the NYT.
Life:
Good idea. I was forced (politics class in college) to read this hefty sucker of a newspaper. Why is it so BIG? They have so many sections that aren’t even necessary. I hated reading it as a college student (and it weighs a ton in your backpack). /sigh/ Perhaps, it will be smaller with all the advertisers they’re losing?
Not even good for that. I put it at the bottom of our cockatiel’s cage once, he wouldn’t crap for 4 days and finally learned to talk - he kept repeating the word “redundant”….
Keller, short version: the NYTimes is fair and balanced.
By the way, liberal blogosphere also questions the NYTimes decision to publish such a vague story.
But there is real meat to the story: McCain had a personal (OK, maybe not “romantic”) relationship with a lobbyist, and intervened in regulatory matters in ways that saved the lobbyist’s clients lots and lots of money. This is not the clean image McCain is trying to project.
#22 On February 21st, 2008 at 4:34 pm, cpodug said:
“hatelibs said: I’ve asked before…why is that propaganda RAG considered a newspaper?
It’s a newspaper in the same sense that Pravda was a newspaper.”
Regarding Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News), the cynical Soviet citizens had a great barb:
“There is no news in The Truth, and there is no truth in The News”
Wonder if that would apply to the NYT….
emjem24
It used to be bigger and it used to have a quality. Even when it was arch and pretentious it tried to hold to standards. Adolph Ochs cared deeply about his country and his paper. The decline of the paper over the last 40 years has been well documented. The current publisher Pinch Sulzburger has presided over what can be considered a journalistic implosion. Due to the nature of the stock classes for the papers equity only a small number of people in the Ochs-Sulzburger family control the paper.
The back of the paper has expanded dramatically and those sections largely work. If you do not like them ignore them. The problems are in the front of the paper with poor journalism combined with hysterical editorial and Op-ed pages.
Personally I read The NY Sun.
When did the NYT also release the story about Hillary’s affair with Huma Abedin?
OK. I’m probably going to regret this, but, isn’t that what a lobbyist is supposed to do for their clients? Get them the best legislative deal on an issue that they can? That’s why they have to register, and disclose their spending etc.
jrlingreenbay said:
Dude, that was funny…I almost spewed!
For even more snotworthy fu this is the NY Times official statment on their use of Anonymous sources.
NY Times Policy
I hear that Keller also offers a good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
I could never figure out why our canary got constipated whenever I used the NYT to line his cage. Now, I know.
J S Ragman said (#31):
Yes, but Senators are not supposed to do favors in return for favors (donations, private jet trips, etc.). That’s what McCain is accused of doing.
Lifeofthemind - Don’t even talk about how the NYT used to have (read also as ever had) quality. Have you ever heard the name Walter Duranty? He won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting for the NYT. We’re talking 1930’s here.
I also noticed how lgm turned the blatant hypocrisy of the NYT into yet another hit on Fox News.
The front page McCain story in the New York Times was specifically released at this time and has only one purpose - to protect Michelle Obama from the growing controversy over her obviously anti-American statements.
I have learned by watching the Clintons that you never look directly at where the light is shown but at the edges where the truth is. In this case, the edges are very revealing.
Boycott the times……Enough is enough…
Here is a small list of companies doing business with that hideous organization. Enough is enough…
Taken from their web page…
Chevy, Bank Of America, Monster.com, Hewlett Packard, Fidelity Investments, Ameriprize Financial, T-Mobile, ING Direct/Sharebuilder, Devry University, Charter Cable, Capitol One, Best Buy, Samsung, CNet.com, AT&T
Think about it.
That’s not worthy of a snort, Michelle, but rather a guffaw. Thanks for the warning about securing beverages first.
Question, what will the NYT do next week to top this outrage? Publish photos of McCain with aliens at some Georgetown bar? 8-1/2 months to the election, we are going to need bigger shovels to get through this election season sports fans.
Dang! I’ve got to start paying more attention to the “put your beverage down first” warnings. How do you get softdrink off your computer? :lol;
Well, now we know how high the bar was set, before it was published.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Not Letting The Facts Get In The Way Of The News.
Hmm ….
Very good.
I bought a NYT the other day and decided to use it for toilet paper. However, when I was ready to utilize it, I realized it was already covered in sh!t.
It’s hilarious to watch the Dem talking heads frantically laboring away on this story all over tv, radio and the blogs as they weave their anti-McCain talking points together.
If anyone still has a shred of doubt that the NY Times is not a newspaper but a high profile political action group, this latest episode should kill that doubt.
I’m having a hard time figuring out what exactly the NYT’s is reporting. There are a few hints and innuendos of possible appearances of impropriaty. But I didn’t see any specifics or any accusations of illegality in the report. Did I miss something?
How do you challenge a vague innuendo?
Didn’t the NYT know about this story before they endorsed McCain?
Does anyone believe the NYT would print such a story about a Democrat they had just endorsed?
These are just a few of the question that comes to mind.
I’m not a liar. I just play one as editor of a desperate newspaper.
Even if it was true what McCain did what is it to the libs?? Don’t they regard sin and right doing no big deal and its all relative? I didn’t think adultry, homosexuality was any big deal to them. I was just wondering.
It must suck to be the office fire marshal on Bill Keller’s floor. At least once a day, he’s got to grab the extinguisher and put out Keller’s pants.
They should change their front page to “All the anti-GOP conservative news that’s fit to print.”
Someone else said it better, “Just the news that fits our views.”
To #18: McAmnesty doesn’t just reach across the isle, he WALKS across the isle, puts on the OTHER teams uniform, and SINGS their fight song!!!
On February 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm, Ron said:
In some devious way, do you think this will help McCain among conservatives? I mean, having your integrity called into question by the NY Times is a pretty good thing, right? Since we all know how far we can trust THEIR ethics…
Apparently it has lead to a fund raising bonanza for McCain. Howard Dean had this to say ,“McCain and the right-wing noise machine will do anything and say anything to win,” Dean said in an e-mail, directing donors to a Web site where they could “match” the McCain fundraising. “Turning an ethics scandal into a fundraising opportunity is just the start, and exactly what you’d expect a team full of lobbyists to come up with.”
Dean called McCain’s ability to benefit financially from the article “textbook sleaze.”
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/22/mccain-leaves-new-york-times-to-answer-for-lobbyist-article/
One small pearl of truth amidst an ocean of horse dung. You do work to the harm of one though, you bastards.