Skip to comments.NYT editor responds to McCain camp
Posted on 09/22/2008 1:23:07 PM PDT by NoobRep
NYT editor responds to McCain camp broadside
NY Times executive editor Bill Keller responded, in an e-mail to Politico, to Steve Schmidt's contention that the paper is pulling for Obama, and that "it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization."
"The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."
Gee, Bill Keller, We’re blue in the face waiting for:
NYT examination of the Obama days as an Il. State Sen and the steering of grants and tax breaks to Rezko, Allison Davis et.al. ad the source of his income.
NYT looks into the plight of Obama’s step brothers and sisters, subsisting in poverty.
NYT looks into who actually bought “Audacity of Hope” and Dreams of my Father”. Echos of the old Jim Wright ploy: write a cruddy book your union buddies can buy in mass quantities.
Nyt looks into the Annenberg Chicago Challenge Where Obama, as head of the fund, squandered $101 million on educational experiments that showed absolutely no improvement in performance.
Just a Start, Bill
Watch out, Bill, your pants are on fire!
Since I’m a former newspaperman, let me translate:
>>>”The New York Times is committed...<<<
They are committed partisans engaging in what is now called “advocacy journalism.”
>>>... to covering the candidates ... <<<
In the case of candidates we support, covering up for them.
>>> ...fully, fairly and aggressively... <<<
We are full of it, quite often. We are fairly biased most of the time. We are aggressive in our support for the left and Democrats, and aggressive in our distaste and disgust of Americans, the Republicans, conservatives, and Christians.
>>>... It’s our job to ask hard questions ... <<<
But there are many times that it’s Friday at the office, or it just feels like Friday, and we take time to slack off.
>>>... fact-check their statements and their advertising ... <<<
While ignoring what we don’t like.
>>>... examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors ...<<<
In the case of conservatives and Republicans, in the same manner as a proctologist performing a colonoscopy.
>>> ... Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny ... <<<
In other words, please go f*** yourself.
>>>... but it’s what our readers expect and deserve...<<<
Our readers comprise the petit bourgoise, the folks Lenin called “useful idiots.” They expect us to smear anyone who doesn’t accept their narrow view of the world. These same readers deserve what they get.
There, translation complete.
I love it when their own words sound like parody.
I wonder if he wrote this with a straight face?
The key is in understanding that the liberal definition of “fair” differs enormously from ours. We think it means intellectually honest. They think it means anything that supports their position (which they think is intellectually superior).
O’Bama is not a candidate, he is the anointed, he is the ONE.
McCain is only a candidate.
“LOL..and from the movie Mars Attacks. We are your friends we will not hurt you..”
The line from Mars Attacks is “We come in peace.” We come in peace.”
The New York Times is the American socialist’s Pravda.
Please give us just ONE "hard" question you've asked Obama, and the answer. (crickets)
Very nice post, SM.
At least they spared us the vigorous defense of the blind impartiality they don't have. It would have been too painful to read.
Executive Editor Bill Keller votes “present” and “reporting for dooty”.
The sad thing is that Keller probably believes they are being fair and unbiased. To them, its just that McCain is old and senile, and a warmonger with a bad temper, and Obama is fresh, young and vibrant.
You know, like when you have the misfortune to argue with a liberal, and inevitably, the conversation ends with the lib shaking his or her head sadly, and saying that “You just don’t get it.”
The NYT will be in busness until the revolution. When they finally get to the point of bankruptcy the government will bail them out. And if that happens in the next 3 months Bush will bail them out. He just wants to be loved. Is that so wrong?
From the email: “It’s our job to ask hard questions,...”
right! sure! that IS your job and just when do you plan to start asking ALL the candidates the hard questions, Mr. Keller?
One of the character you need to become a successful liberal is a shameless ‘thick face’. That you feel good about lying and take pride in delivering liars.
Everybody knows the Republicans own most of the media. McCain cries too much if he expects the NYT to lick his boots the same as Fox News, the WSJ, Larry Kudlow, Rush Limbaugh, ad infinitum.
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.