Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deceptive NY Times Headline: 'U.S.' Missed Warning Signs On Solyndra
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 09/23/2011 4:44:09 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

Sometimes, media bias is all about the headline . . . The New York Times has a decent piece this morning detailing the background that led to the approval by the Obama admin of more than a half-billion in loan guarantees to the soon-to-go-kaput Solyndra solar firm. The article paints a picture of an Obama admin that was eager to get the money out the door, was heavily lobbied by Solyndra and its major player who was a big Obama donor.

But check out the headline: "In Rush to Assist Solyndra, U.S. Missed Warning Signs." What do you mean, "U.S.", Gray Lady? That "U.S" suggests that perhaps the previous Bush admin also let itself get bamboozled by Solyndra. Except that the truth is just the opposite, as these paras from the article demonstrate [emphasis added]:

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: newyorktimes; nytimes4dnc; nytimes4obama; nytimesspinsnews; obama; paidnewsbynytimes; scandals; solyndra

1 posted on 09/23/2011 4:44:20 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; Diogenesis; MEG33; PGalt; ...

Deceptive NY Times headline on Solyndra ping to Today show list.


2 posted on 09/23/2011 4:45:07 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
What do you mean, "U.S."

Just...wow. The NYT manages to spin even this for their guy.

Whoever thought up that headline must have gotten a raise. Well, an extra donut this morning, at least.

3 posted on 09/23/2011 4:46:47 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (undecided)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

These soulless commie ghouls always want to spread their blame. It wasn’t the US, it was the nobama minions and the chief advocate of this insanity, great leader nobama. I puke on them.


4 posted on 09/23/2011 4:48:12 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

It wasn’t US, it was THEM. And I think they knew d@mn well the company was going broke and laundered another chunk of loot through it.


5 posted on 09/23/2011 4:48:21 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

More spin in the headline— the warning signs weren’t “missed”; they were IGNORED.


6 posted on 09/23/2011 4:50:34 AM PDT by NCLaw441 (I before E except after C, or when sounded as A in neighbor and weigh. Isn't that WEIRD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

Good point.


7 posted on 09/23/2011 4:57:49 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I’ll pass on this criticism by Newsbusters. The article provides a lot of detail, timelines and NAMES. It is very clear early in the article that the Bush administration did it’s homework...and the 0bama admin., including PELOSI and JARRETT have very dirty hands in all of this. It’s a good article, shocked that it’s coming from the NYT.


8 posted on 09/23/2011 5:01:51 AM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Agree that it’s a good article, as I [governs=Finkelstein] acknowledged in the NewsBusters item. But it seems clear that the editor tried to limit the damage to Obama by slapping that misleading headline on it.


9 posted on 09/23/2011 5:04:22 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
'U.S.' Missed Warning Signs On Solyndra

Corrected would read:

Corrupt White House Ignored Warning Signs On Solyndra

-or-

Criminal President Ignored Warning Signs On Solyndra

10 posted on 09/23/2011 5:05:44 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

White House worried about Solyndra default

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House officials discussed the political ramifications of a possible default by a troubled solar energy company that received more than $500 million in federal loans, newly released emails show.

Emails released Thursday night show that Obama administration privately worried about the effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on the president’s re-election campaign.

“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” an official from the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a Jan. 31 email to a senior OMB official. “The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-worried-about-apf-2358411967.html?x=0&.v=24

I am including a comment following the article:

phorensicguySat Sep 17, 2011 10:59 pm EDT Report Abuse
If the government was concerned about the Solyndra possible default;

WHY did the government change their $528 milliion of priority loan guarantees to a SUBORDINATE line in December 2010? This would appear to serve only one purpose, that being to protect the equity investors, of whom the major shareholder appears to be Mr. Kaiser. Mr. Kaiser, as all know well, is the largest bundler of campaign contributions for President Obama.

Why did the Obama administration seek approval of a $528 million loan guarantee for a company that has accumulated capital losses of more than $500 million in the prior five years?

Why did the Obama administration push the Department of Energy to approve a loan guarantee that the previous administration had vetted and was UNWILLING to make, based on merit?

A skeptic would come up with the following line of thinking: Mr. Kaiser and his private investors had placed over $500 million into Solyndra and were in danger of losing 100% of their investment. They first approached the Bush administration for a loan guarantee. The financials were reviewed and the company was told that no loan would be forthcoming.

Then, Mr. Kaiser started funneling milllions of dollars to the Obama campaign, and may have been instrumental in the election outcome. Shortly thereafter, a loan for a largely insolvent company was approved.

As it became clear that the $528 million was also being burnt through at a blazing pace, Solyndra then asked the government to subordinate their loan, so as to to protect the common equity holders. This was done, and now the government stands to receive 0, that is to say, the American people will have lost $535 million, plus whatever the cost of the investigation and the inevitable inquiry. As inquiries and investigations can often cost more than $100 million from start to finish, this could potentially become a $600 million+ debacle.

Solyndra shareholders, on the other hand and thanks to the government agreement to subordinate their loan guarantee, might even recover about $100 million-$200 million of their original $528 million of capital...plus whatever they have removed as incentive fees for the past couple of years.

It would be a real shame if further papers were released indicatingd the White house considered a further bridge loan, merely to defer the Solyndra bankruptcy filing until AFTER the conclusion of the 2012 election.

This entire matter stinks to high heaven. Mr. Obama, in many of his initial election speeches, railed about Washington’s “crony capitalism”, and pledged to end the practise. A skeptic would say, after reviewing the timeline of this matter, that Obama’s election was bought by Kaiser, and the loan represented payback. After all, had Obama not been elected, Solyndra equity holders would be out about more than $500 million dollars, but the American taxpayer would be fine. With Obama bought and paid for, Solyndra equity holders may recover $100 million -$200 million of their original money. Not a terribly bad thing for $1.7 million in lobbying costs and some campaign contributions. By appearance, Mr. Obama’s VERY FIRST deal in the Washington appears to be exactly the practise that he stated, time and time again, that would end under his watch.

Oh, and the American taxpayer? A skeptic would suggest that Mr. Obama never gave them a second thought. After all, it wasn’t Mr. Obama’s PERSONAL money going into the loan guarantee.

Complicity, illegal, immoral and impeachable...that’s what a skeptic would conclude. Regardless of who initialled the original loan paperwork, the person or persons responsible for sinking 100% of the taxpayer’s loan guarantee, through the subordination agreement in December 2010, deserves to go to jail. Let us hope that the right party is found and punished.


11 posted on 09/23/2011 5:06:20 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
The headline the NYT wanted to run:

Bush Administration Caused Solyndra Failure!!!!

12 posted on 09/23/2011 5:11:55 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Maybe the Times meant ‘us’ as in first person plural, since they are on the same team as the Obama Admin.


13 posted on 09/23/2011 5:20:22 AM PDT by sportutegrl (Still, it's bad grammar. Should've used 'we'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Standard MSM modus operandi. When Republicans have screwed the pooch, it’s always “THEY, THEY, THEY!” When Dems get caught in a scandal, or if people are general upset with a Democratic-led country (such as the state we’re in now), the MSM will generalize: “people are upset with the general direction of the country...” Or, “The poll numbers of Congress are really low,” or “both parties have a share of the blame.”


14 posted on 09/23/2011 5:22:12 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a fillibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Also missing from the coverage is an emphasis that a good chunk of this “jobs” loan went to pay a European firm to automate production! I guess we were creating Dutch jobs that month.


15 posted on 09/23/2011 5:26:31 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (So much stress was put on Bush's Fault that it finally let go, magnitude 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
Maybe the Times meant ‘us’ as in first person plural, since they are on the same team as the Obama Admin.

"In Rush to Assist Solyndra, U.S.We and da Boss Missed Warning Signs."

16 posted on 09/23/2011 5:27:55 AM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

BTTT


17 posted on 09/23/2011 5:30:25 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty (Shaking My Head on a daily basis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

“U.S.’ Missed Warning Signs On Solyndra”

Typical MSM weasel words of apology for the Democrat Crime syndicate...


18 posted on 09/23/2011 5:33:25 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

As soon as I read it the “US” sticks out like a sore thumb. We KNOW who IGNORED the warning signs and such a headline is more evidence of blatant bias by the NYT to coverup for President ZERO.


19 posted on 09/23/2011 5:36:07 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Had enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Editors create headlines, writers write the piece. Editorial staff at the NYT will stop at NOTHING to protect OTrauma.


20 posted on 09/23/2011 5:37:19 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Can’t resist:

“What you mean US, paleface?”


21 posted on 09/23/2011 8:40:00 AM PDT by Ole Okie (!!!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie

LOL: all kidding aside, I thought of opening my NewsBusters piece with that line, but figured I’d probably run afoul of the PC Police.


22 posted on 09/23/2011 11:00:10 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks governsleastgovernsbest. Perdogg, is this the earlier topic you referred to here?:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2782940/posts

Solyndra crooks plead the 5th:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2782697/posts


23 posted on 09/23/2011 5:14:56 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson