A Deafening Silence--Why did the press ignore the Van Jones scandal?

DC Examiner | Frontpagemagazine ^ | September 09, 2009 | Byron York

[SJackson]

On March 13, 2008, ABC News broke the story that Barack Obama's longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had made a number of incendiary statements from the pulpit of Obama's church in Chicago. The most inflammatory of those remarks was Wright's notorious "God damn America" sermon.

The news set off a media firestorm. "God damn America" was in the papers, magazines, the Internet, television, radio. It was everywhere, except one place: the news pages of America's most powerful newspaper, the New York Times. In the days, weeks, and months following the ABC report, the Times' news pages repeatedly failed to inform its readers that Wright had ever uttered those infamous words.

The quote did find its way into a few columns and a (pro-Obama) editorial. But in the news pages -- the ones which report "All the news that's fit to print" -- months went by with no word of "God damn America." It was not until Sept. 24, 2008, six months after the story originally broke, that an article in the Times -- it was about anti-Obama political ads -- reported Wright's notorious words. For half a year, the paper's editors simply ignored a key portion of one of the biggest stories of the presidential campaign.

Now, the Times has failed to report another story, this time one that led to the resignation of a White House official much loved by many on the left, "green jobs" czar Van Jones.

Times readers didn't know it, but the causes for Jones' departure included the fact that he signed a 2004 petition supporting the so-called "9/11 truther" movement; that he was a self-professed communist during much of the 1990s; that he supported the cop-killer Mumia abu-Jamal; that in 2008 he accused "white polluters" of "steering poison into the people of color communities"; and that earlier this year, speaking to a friendly crowd in Berkeley, Calif., he called Republicans "a--holes."

When controversy erupted, Jones apologized for the "truther" episode and his remarks about the GOP, but the Times, having not reported the original story, also failed to report the apologies.

Beyond Jones and Wright, there have been other instances in the recent past in which the Times did not report stories of real political significance.

Early in the Obama administration, the Times did not tell its readers about a controversy raging over the proposed choice of Charles Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. Some conservatives opposed Freeman for his ties to the Saudi government, as well as things he had said about Israel. The Times ignored the story for weeks until it was over, publishing a report only after Freeman withdrew his name from consideration.

Then, of course, there was the case of John Edwards, the former 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and 2008 presidential candidate. Despite mounting evidence, the Times did not report Edwards' affair with a woman he hired to produce campaign videos until after Edwards himself publicly admitted it.

Wright. Jones. Freeman. Edwards. For simplicity's sake, I've focused on the Times' coverage, but other top news outlets also ignored or underreported some of those stories. Why?

Certainly there's bias involved. Given what we know from the formal and informal polling of journalists at mainstream organizations, most of the people involved in political reporting are liberals, and likely Democrats. They want the Obama administration to succeed.

But the question may not be so much who they are, as who they hate, or at least who they intensely dislike.

The first words of the Times' story on Jones' resignation were, "In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration's conservative critics. ..." One news anchor suggested Jones was "the Republican right's first scalp." Other coverage called the Jones affair a victory for Glenn Beck, Fox News, right-wing blogs, and even Sarah Palin, who played no role in the matter.

If you throw in Rush Limbaugh, you have all the bogey-people of the conservative world. To some on the left, including some journalists, denying them a victory was a top priority, no matter what Van Jones had said and done.

There was a day, not too long ago, when the Times and other influential news organizations could kill a story -- could deny the bad guys a win -- simply by ignoring it. Sometimes they still try. But it just won't work anymore.

[knarf]

Because it’s the camel’s nose ... and when the ass end is in the tent .. THAT will be the press ..... and they know it.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Might as well just have a macro set up for this: “Why did the media ignore ( fill in democrat scandal du jour ) but have incessant coverage of ( fill in Republican scandal )?”

[Paladin2]

The NYT, now spiking themselves in the foot.

[ontap]

Their circulation is in the tank, their reputation is in the sewer and their profits have gone completely south.....LIFE IS GOOD!!!!

[envisio]

I see the Times as an editorial. Some see it as the gospel.

Which, by definition, it is gospel. They are like a church, preaching to their followers. They don’t invoke other beliefs..... just thier own sermon preaching to their own congregation.

It saddens me to think of all the two-ply toliet paper that could have been made out of the paper instead.

[Vaquero]

LEFTIST PRESS...hands over their ears....”LA, LA, LA...I CAN’T HEAR YOU...LA, LA, LA,”

moron of the day, Ed Begley jr this AM on the FNC.

did not believe that Van Jones said the things he said, but did not, nor would not, watch the video’s of him saying the things he said.

[wastoute]

The answer to the question asked in the title is easy. They THOUGHT they could. I read a poster here the other day that said now the Brown Shirt Media is "the fringe media" and FOx is the MSM. A lot of truth there and the Brown Shirt Media may or may not begin to wake up. I noticed even Bill O'Reilly is starting to warm up to the task last night. Real journalists will smell blood in the water like sharks and a frenzy of feeding on Zero and his minions may begin soon.

Μολὼν λάβε

[Sig Sauer P220]

Because the press is in love with obama and they believe his promises to them that he’ll still love them in the morning. When in fact, those morons will suffer along with the rest of us when marxism, sharia law, or whatever the hell he has in store for this country, hits.

[Toespi]

They are owned by those who are involved in the progressive movement, and the infiltration of the government. They are making their sacrifices for the common good and will be rewarded.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

Once again (!) may I draw your attention to my tagline.
Seriously, I do indeed regret that the TIMES constantly proves me correct.
I regret it because I remember a glorious PAST. I envision NO future, though.

[Common Sense 101]

I’m assuming this is a rhetorical question, correct?

[Mr. K]

I was wondering how CNNBCBSABCPBS were going to report on his resignation when they refused to report on it before that.

[PGalt]

Why Did Propagandists Ignore the Van Jones Scandal? Duh!

[Bulldawg Fan]

He was one of their own and they take care of each other. His views are not radical in their minds, they share them all.

[floozy22]

tag line

[Lou L]

They were talking a little bit about this on Greta, last night. There's a long-standing "rule" in media communications by which you release bad news late on a Friday (or in the Van Jones' case, over the weekend), and by the time Monday rolls around, you're in a new "news cycle."

This may have been true back when typewriters were still being used to type stories, but surely there's no reason for it to be true today. What is a "news cycle" anyway, and who gets to decide what's in that cycle? That's a rhetorical question for sure, but we should demand the full story.

[Buckeye McFrog]

the same reason that ESPN canned Rush....you just CAN”T criticize the Black Man....

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Byron York:"Despite mounting evidence, the Times did not report Edwards' affair with a woman he hired to produce campaign videos until after Edwards himself publicly admitted it."

Juxtaposing "mounting evidence" between details of Edwards' furtive boinkings of Rielle Hunter wins this week's prize for snarkiness.

FOX and the MSM may have taken the position the story was a little overblown. Until the money trail details developed. Sanford and his Argentina adventure, on the other hand, got coverage.

[combat_boots]

“I noticed even Bill O’Reilly is starting to warm up to the task”

Yup.
...by handing over the his mantle of leadership in investigation and ‘troublemaking’ to Beck.

People don’t follow titles. They follow courage.

---

And many of our founders gave everything they had. 0bama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, are more than happy to give up everything ‘you’ have—to them and their masters.

BOR is at the age and in a philosophical place of accomplishment and complacency, a ‘been there, done that’ way of thinking that is only just now considering that 0bama & crew really do have something else in mind—and designs on the $$ and bodies of even the BOR types.