Posted on 08/04/2005 8:47:19 PM PDT by ajolympian2004
Well, now we know why the NYTimes hasn't bothered to cover Air Enron/Air Scamerica. They're too preoccupied with prying into the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' young children, according to the Drudge Report.
For God's sake.
Jeff Goldstein has a list of what's next on the NYTimes' dirt-digging agenda.
4: Can Judge Roberts account for his whereabouts on the night Natalee disappeared?
NYTimes ombudsman Byron Calame is going to be a very busy man.
***
On the same wavelength...Ed Morrissey, Jason Smith
Bainbridge: Slimy slimeballs
Hugh Hewitt with the mega-round-up.
John H. at Power Line: "[N]ow that the Times' investigation into John Roberts' four and five year old children has fizzled out and been abandoned, can they free up some resources to start checking into Air America's financial chicanery?"
***
Update: For what it's worth, here's a response one of my blog readers, TexasSecyMom, received from the NY Times' executive editor desk...
As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened.
Like all major news organizations, we report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office. Most of the inquiries we make do not report in published articles at all; we would simply be remiss if we did not ask the questions.
In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.
TexasSecyMom replied:
Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the information.Perhaps I would be less inclined to believe someone like Matt Drudge if the New York Times had a better track record when it comes to biased reporting about conservatives. I know that the editorial staff at the NYTimes loves to proclaim its nonpartisanship, but that is just a bunch of baloney. For example, your newspaper has printed almost 60 articles about Air America, all of them glowing with praise for Al Franken and the rest of the staff at the failing liberal radio network. However, there have been exactly ZERO stories about the growing scandal involving Air America and the use of funds intended for the elderly and children to pay the bills. How were Al Franken and everyone else paid nice salaries while losing listeners throughout the country, and did any of that money come from the "loan" from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club? When you decide that you can either admit that you are a liberal newspaper, or you can change the way your stories are reported, then I will actually be able to read the NYTimes without discounting much of what I read.
Update II: Bloggers and readers have questions for the muck-rakers:
Angry in the Great White North has two questions...
1. Was Glen Justice on the case? If so, why, given a serious incident in his past for misreporting on critically important political story?
2. What the hell did you think you were going to find in the first place? Indeed, what did you hope to find?
Reader Andrew G:
Question to the NYT: Which of Drudge's statements was wrong? The NYT response doesn't indicate a specific substantive error or misrepresentation.
Update III: Reader Glenn B. passes along a new statement from the NY Times, this time from the public editor's office...
Dear Reader,
Thanks for writing to us.
While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication
matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he
would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children.
He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this
issue.
In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "In the case of Judge
Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions,
as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with
great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up
an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the
initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."
Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those
of The New York Times
Number of NY Times articles mentioning Air America since March 2004: 59
Number of NY Times articles mentioning the Air Enron scandal: 0
(Via Nexis)
It seems we're not the only ones monitoring the MSM's near-total blackout of Air America's financial shenanigans. New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame (public@nytimes.com) is "closely watching" the Air America story and how it is handled by the paper, according to an e-mail sent by Mr. Calame's assistant to a Power Line reader.
Fortunately, plenty of others are covering the story while the Times twiddles its thumbs. The latest:
Investor's Business Daily
Washington Times
New York Post
Power Line
Radio Blogger
Hugh Hewitt (Hugh's new Daily Standard column is here).
Edward Morrissey
Rush Limbaugh
Austin Bay
Leon H. at Macho Nachos has a follow up on Air America and legal matters
Scrappleface spoofs: "Air America Hires Dan Rather as Scandal Spokesman"
The New York Sun's David Lombino is undoubtedly digging further.
And, of course, Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer remains the first and last stop for news and analysis.
The conclusion of Hugh's Daily Standard column today is worth repeating:
We know a lot about the medications Rush Limbaugh has taken.We know a great deal about Bill O'Reilly's troubles.
But thus far we don't know much about how Al Franken got paid the big bucks last year, when all of the mainstream media seemed to be cheering his debut.
Last month, the Times's executive editor, Bill Keller, trumpeted the newspaper's new committment to "to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
We're waiting...
***
1038am EST. I'll be on the Tony Snow Show in a few minutes to talk Air Enron.
***
Previous:
Silence of the race hustlers
Air Enron: Al Franken speaks
Air Deadbeat: The saga continues
The Air America loophole
Air America is scrambling
Air America: Don't blame us
Air America: Stealing from poor kids?!
You would be remiss if you didn't look into the adoption files of every public figure?
What business is that of yours, NYT?
Yet, if something anamolous had surfaced in the investigation of Robert's adopted children, it would've been full steam ahead, and sensitivity be damned.
The NY Times is a joke, I have more respect for the "intellectual honesty" of the National Enquirer.Drop dead you pathetic slimy weasels!!
"I have more respect for the "intellectual honesty" of the National Enquirer"
It's no joke, the Enquirer has more intelletual honesty and journalistic integrity in its "work at home for a bazillion dollars a week" ads (I'm assuming they run such things) than the NY Times has ever had, at least in the 20th century. I don't think the National Enquirer ever hid the holocaust or ran puff pieces on Stalin for a small start. In addition, many things the Enquirer reports have the virtue of being true.
This is so personal...the children are so young..they most likely have not been told they are adopted..yet.
this is just outrageous!
I thought children were off limits in politics!
read later
The NY Times would have been happy had the adorable Roberts kids been aborted. Their favorite babies are dead babies.
Al Franken was listed as no. 37 in 100 People Who Are Screwing up America. I hope this moves him up a notch.
Anti NYT liberal Nuclear-Tipped Sarcasm Torpedo ARMED. FIRE!!
You forget, this is about "a woman's right to choose" (Roe v. Wade), which trumps the usual "It's all for the children" !
You see, these children are adopted, which means that some woman MUST have foregone her right to an abortion, in order for these children to have been available for adoption.
See how simple it is they are?
No cheers, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.