Forrest Gump leaves the New York Times after being rejected for a job writing obits. Jason Blair rehired...
Posted on 08/27/2004 7:09:02 AM PDT by jmstein7
The New York Times Has Strong Ties to the Kerry Campaign
By Jonathan M. Stein
The New York Times, which advertises itself as containing “All The News That’s Fit To Print” – a slogan that suggests objectivity – has myriad and dubious financial and political ties to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. These links between Kerry and the Times seriously call into question the objectivity of that allegedly impartial media outlet – an outlet with enormous power and influence over public opinion.
According to major news outlets, including the New York Times, the fact that a major Republican donor has contributed money to the group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth calls into question the impartiality of that group and ties it to the Republicans. If that is indeed the case – that an exchange of funds between an entity and a partisan contributor dispositively links the entity to a partisan cause – then, by their own logic, the New York Times is unquestionably linked to the Kerry campaign and other far-left groups. To understand the severe implications of such a link, one must fully comprehend the power and reach of the New York Times.
As of March of 2004, the Times had a total circulation volume of 1,133,763 copies daily. However, the circulation volume of the paper itself does not reflect the paper’s total impact on the marketplace of information. The New York Times Company publishes The New York Times, The Boston Globe and 16 other newspapers; owns eight network-affiliated television stations and two New York radio stations; and has more than 40 Web sites, including NYTimes.com and Boston.com. Columns appearing in the NYT are syndicated throughout this extensive media network. Further, network and cable news anchors tend to lead with stories substantively taken from the front page of the NYT. Thus, the reach of the NYT and its incalculable power to influence the marketplace of information and ideas evince a media juggernaut beyond that of any other single information source in existence. More salient, though, is the fact that the Times, as an alleged media outlet, escapes regulation under McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
The network of financial connections between the Kerry campaign and the Times is extensive. Although the New York Times has an allegedly official “ban” on political campaign contributions, a simple search on “opensecrets.org” reveals that at least two editors in the employ of the New York Times, Christine Muhlke and Elizabeth Stewart, have personally contributed at least $1,500 to John Kerry’s campaign efforts. These are individuals who have direct influence on the selection of stories that run in the Times and its companion magazine – and they are on the record giving money out of their own pockets directly to the Kerry campaign. At least two other employees of the Times – Alan Flippen and William Usuik – have contributed another $1,250 to John Kerry. Alternatively, not a single employee of the Times has contributed to President Bush or any other Republican candidate or organization. This fact, i.e. the fact that influential individuals working for the New York Times have contributed money directly to John Kerry, and John Kerry alone, is quite troubling and seriously calls into question the objectivity of that news outlet. Further, the financial connection between John Kerry, the Democrats, and the New York Times goes beyond mere employees.
The New York Times Company is effectively owned and controlled by the Sulzberger family. At lease one Sulzberger family member, Dr. Judith P. Sulzberger (who owns, de jure, approximately five-percent of the New York Times voting shares, or over about seven million shares), has donated the maximum ($2,000) directly to John Kerry (on March 8, 2004). Dr. Sulzberger has also contributed $5,000 to “Victory Campaign 2004” (which finds radical leftist 527 groups such as Americans Coming Together and The Media Fund) and $20,000 to the Democrat National Committee (DNC Services Corp.). So, in the aggregate, an individual exercising de jure ownership/control over the New York Times Company has donated in excess of $27,000 to John Kerry and other far-left efforts to defeat the President.
The New York Times, in major stories, has used donor-donee connections to call into question the credibility and objectivity of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Therefore, in all fairness, the same standard should be applied to the Times in assessing its credibility and objectivity. When applied to the New York Times, the financial connections between that media outlet, John Kerry, and other far-left groups organized to defeat the President raises serious doubts about the objectivity and credibility of the Times itself.
In other news,
Bear Sh&ts in woods, scientists puzzled.
BUMP!
Great article. The only thing missing is a diagram that shows the connections, similar to what the NYT did for the SBVT.
Good work everybody!
Excellent. One minor point: change lease to least. Great job.
The only satisfaction wqe can get will be when President Bush is re-elected in spite of all these contributions-in-kind to the 'rats from the mainstream media.
If Kerry wins and flushes us down the toilet, the NYT must be held accountable.
Another way to measure the financial juggernaut that the NYT represents for Kerry is to find out what advertising costs in the Times. Then take that cost per square inch and do a quick and dirty run on the stories that the Times writes for Kerry and the ones against Bush. That's the real tale of the financial tape.
Thanks for the ping!
Another good one. Keep it up...
Well done.
It's worse than that. After CFR, such ads can't legally be run at any price ... but can still be run as "news", which the NYT will be only too happy to oblige.
BTTT!!!!!
Since the people in charge of the NYT have now been identified as biased Kerry supporters, the biased NYT reporting that so blatantly excuses all of Kerry lies and denounces all of Kerry's detractors, can be counted as a campaign contribution.
Since contributions to the presidential candidates are not allowed (after a certain date already passed) the NYT is in violation of the FEC's laws.
Investigate the Kerry Times (West) and you will find similar engagement.
bump TO SUPPORT THE NEW SWIFT VETS AD AND GEORGE BUSH... http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/gardner2.mpg
Can you give me a cite to the part of CFR that this violates?
Brit Hume might run with it, but thats about it. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would pay for the NY Times, not after the Jayson Blair and Howell Raines scandals.
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.