Posted on 02/23/2008 6:37:54 AM PST by jdm
Earlier today, I linked to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and its editor's essay about the journalistic defects in the New York Times hit piece on John McCain. David McCumber chose not to run the Times' article in the Seattle P-I despite having the rights to it on syndication. Andrew Malcom at the Los Angeles Times reports that another paper also killed the story -- despite being owned by the New York Times:
But one interesting aspect of this combined political and professional controversy went widely unnoticed. The Boston Globe, which is wholly owned by the New York Times, chose not to publish the article produced by its parent company's reporters.
Instead, the Globe published a version of the same story written by the competing Washington Post staff. That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at but did not describe or document and which the senator and lobbyist have denied.
On Thursday the Globe's website, Boston.com, did provide a link to the Times story on the Times' website. But such a stark editorial decision by a major newspaper raises suspicions that even the Globe's editors, New York Times Co. employees all, had their own concerns about the content of their parent company's story.
Rainey asked the Globe's editor, Martin Baron, about that decision. His eloquent reply: "No comment."
When journalists hear such rhetorical avoidance from public figures and politicians, they usually take it as confirmation of their suspicions.
That's a rather telling denunciation, isn't it?
Has someone been playing with the thermostat in hell?
The Globe had to know this story was being cooked up for several months by the NYT. Definitely a chink in the armor.
The NYT fabrication about McCain is the new Dan Rather Memo.
... like the Dinosaur Media can afford another Dan Rather Memogate story... “fake but accurate”...
... and they had the nerve to attack the internet as running stories that have not been properly vetted ... by wonderful “gatekeepers”? !!!
I’m really looking forward to the day that Old Media have no more influence than the New Media.
No. Pinch Sulzbereger is not only a screaming leftist, he is as dumb as a rock.
Note that the story in the Times, a very long piece, is mainly about McCain's supposedly corrupt connections to lobbyists. But they added the bit about an alleged affair with a female lobbyist, and printed her picture.
The result, of course, is that the supposed affair grabbed everyone's attention and the corrupt lobbyists got lost in the dust.
One interpretation of this story is that the NYT didn't want to look like the National Enquirer, so they combined the sleazy accusation with the lobbying research. But the most important damage to McCain was the affair.
I'd suggest hte reverse. I don't know if McCain sold out to corrupt lobbyists or not, but I suspect that he did, because he has a long history, going back to the Keating Five. He likes to wheel and deal and build up power and favors, and one way to do that is lobbyists.
So, the Glob went with the real corruption, because they were smart enough to see that the affair angle would bury the rest of it. As it has. Stupid Pinch Sulzberger has expended a lot of ammunition and only succeeded in making McCain look a little better than he did, as the victim of a sleaze attack. Even the leftists see that.
The Boston Globe... published a version of the same story written by the competing Washington Post staff. That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at but did not describe or document and which the senator and lobbyist have denied... such a stark editorial decision by a major newspaper raises suspicions that even the Globe's editors, New York Times Co. employees all, had their own concerns about the content of their parent company's story. Rainey asked the Globe's editor, Martin Baron, about that decision. His eloquent reply: "No comment." When journalists hear such rhetorical avoidance from public figures and politicians, they usually take it as confirmation of their suspicions.Pelosi and Obama? Both Clintons?
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.