New York Times' sins of omission: how newspaper manipulates media to favor Dem Party

It is generally believed that the Democrats can win the presidency next November if there's bad news in Iraq and bad news for the economy. But that's not exactly true. The Democrats can also win if the news on Iraq and the economy are good, as long as the public thinks the news is bad.

If the New York Times – and their syndicate of accomplices – can lead the public to believe that the news is worse than it actually is, the Democrats actually have a chance of winning the White House. This is precisely how Bill Clinton beat Bush Sr.: At a time when Bill Clinton was declaring "It's the economy, stupid," the economy was actually on the mend, but you wouldn't have known it from reading and listening to the mainstream press.

Late last week, Reuters circulated two wire stories reporting very positive news on the economy: "Jobless Claims Drop Raises Recovery Hopes" and "Retail Sales Gain Biggest in 18 Months"(Thursday, Oct. 9, 2003). According to the Labor Department, the number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless aid fell to its lowest level in eight months last week.

In addition, a list of chain stores – led by Walmart, Sears and Target – reported September sales numbers at the high end of, or above, expectations. This double-dose of good economic data sent the stock market up 124 points after these announcements were made.

As I sipped my coffee the following morning, I noticed something was missing. First, we ran out of cream, so I had to drink it black. Second, the front of the New York Times failed to report either of the favorable stories on the economy. Nor was the news included on the front page of the Times' business section.

I finally found brief mentions of the items on page 5 of the business section, one in the seventh paragraph of a recap of the prior day's stock market activity written by Bloomberg News and the other on the same page in a short article by Reuters. To mute the good employment news even further, the Times placed the Reuters story at the lower left hand corner of the page and changed the Reuters' headline from "Jobless Claims Drop Raises Recovery Hopes" to the less hopeful, "Claims Filed By Jobless Shows Decline."

The Times might offer an excuse, such as there were more important stories that warranted front-page placement. But not that day: "Car Bombing Kills 8 at Police Station in Baghdad Slum" (another in a string of car-bombing stories that have become routine, except that in this one, no Americans were killed or injured), "Red Cross Criticizes Indefinite Detention In Guantanamo Bay," "Younger of Suspects In Sniper Shootings Will Claim Insanity," "Snoop Software Gains Power And Raises Privacy Concerns," and "As Inspectors, Some Meatpackers Fall Short."

The economic recovery has been in gear ever since Congress passed the president's tax cuts, but the New York Times has been reporting the improving economy only reluctantly. When they do report the economy as recovering, they call it the "jobless recovery." Now, there are objective signs that the recovery is not only strong, it is by no means "jobless."

Yet, the Times not only buried the economic news, it failed to assign any of its own reporters to cover the story (or the reporters wrote the articles and they were spiked). Yesterday, Reuters reported more good news on the economy: "Jobless Claims Fall, Inflation Stays Low." Take a look at how the Times covered the same news today.

When there's no cream in sight, I can't help but notice what's missing from my coffee. It doesn't taste the same and, as to how it looks – well, it's like the difference between black and white. But what happens when something's missing from the newspaper? Unlike a cup of coffee missing its cream, a newspaper's omission of an item of news often goes completely unnoticed.

Even those who get their news from several sources have trouble detecting serious omissions. It is not easy to spot something that is not present to begin with – yet the effect of an omission on your perception of a story or your view of the world can be profound. The New York Times sets the agenda for all other news organizations. If something is not newsworthy enough of front-page coverage in the Times, that message reverberates throughout the mainstream press, and the good news just doesn't get out to the public.

The news today on Iraq is excellent, despite some recalcitrant violence in a fairly confined area of the country. The news on the economy is also excellent, with the employment outlook finally fulfilling its promise as a lagging indicator. The news, in reality, is all good for President Bush. But Bush can't win on reality. He can only win on perceptions, and perceptions begin with the New York Times every morning.

As the media arm of the Democrat Party, the New York Times is reporting the world as they would have the public see it, not as it really is. As the election approaches, expect the Times to use their whole arsenal of techniques to distort the news, creating a view of the world on its front pages suitable for the campaign against Bush's re-election hopes.

One of its favorite techniques is to bury the good news or not report it at all. The sin of omission is one of the most difficult means of distortion for the average reader to detect. You will have to read the paper with your eyes wide open. My advice? Read the paper with a cup of coffee – black coffee.

I work in Newark, NJ, and the local left-wing rag, The Star-Ledger, which regularly runs anti-Bush rants as "news" articles on its front page, has this above-the-fold story today:

U.N. backs troops and money to help Iraq

Now, if it had gone the other way, if the resolution had failed, the headline would have been Big Defeat for Bush, or Startling New Bush Diplomacy Failure.

But when it's a big victory for Bush, this local version of the DNC newsletter leaves out any mention of Bush in the headline at all.

The Leftist Press is borish, pedantic and predictable.

Yesterday they were reporting some non mainstream poll, that our soldiers esteem was low . It was all over the news and I for one do not believe this. We even have Demorat SENATORS who have been there this week coming back and telling a different story. We know the news is BIASED. Now tell me where I am wrong??

It's o.k. The Times is hemorraging (sp.?) readers, and has spawned a cottage industry of Times-watchers, like Bob Kohn (who I believe just came out with a book on the Times) which together produce a virtuous circle. The "newspaper of record" continually has egg on its front page, and is continually made an example of, regarding the abuse of power.

"Yesterday they were reporting some non mainstream poll, that our soldiers esteem was low ."

Pardon me for making the correction, but your error could be a sign of how much you already discount the traditional media already.

It was morale, not esteem, that was reported to be low, especially in reserve and National Guard units. IIRC, it was reported in Stars & Stripes. It was not a scientific poll in that it was not a good random sample, but self selected sample in that the respondents were only those who chose to respond.

However, the subject of the article is right on the money. The NY Times prints all the news it sees fit to print, when it isn't deliberately manipulating the news. I particularly remember the obvious omission of a story about "More Guns, Less Crime" when Lott and Mustard released their original paper, before the book. IIRC, only Newsday mentioned it in the NYC metro area, although it was on some cable news channels and C-Span.

I used to read the NY Times daily, starting in the mid seventies, because it had a very good miltary coverage. Now I only get the Sunday NY Times and barely look at it.

the New York Times is reporting the world as they would have the public see it, not as it really is.

There is a word for that, it is propaganda.

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Merriam-Webster

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.