Times Travel Writers for Pickering! (NY Times Can't Find Local Black Opposition To Judge Pickering)

Slate Magazine ^ | January 13, 2003 | Mickey Kaus

[PJ-Comix]

One reason I think the case against Pickering is weak -- on the race issue, anyway -- is the support he's received from African-Americans in his home town. If Pickering hadn't reformed on race since the 1960s, you'd think they'd know. I recommend David Firestone's NYT account from a year ago --"Blacks at Home Support a Judge Liberals Assail"-- which seems to be still available for free online. Some excerpts:

''I have never seen Trent Lott open his arms to the black community the way Charles Pickering has,'' said Larry E. Thomas, owner of Thomas Pharmacy, referring to the Senate minority leader, who is Judge Pickering's friend and patron. " ...

Judge Pickering ... was praised by black city officials for helping to set up after-school youth programs here, and for directing federal money to medical clinics in low-income areas when he was a state senator. Black business leaders say he was influential in persuading white-owned banks to lend money to black entrepreneurs, helping to strengthen the city's black middle class.

''I can't believe the man they're describing in Washington is the same one I've known for years,'' said Thaddeus Edmonson, a former local president of the N.A.A.C.P. who is now president of the seven-member Laurel City Council and one of its five black members. ...

'I know Judge Pickering is a fair and impartial person grounded with Christian ethics and beliefs, who ought to be given this chance,'' said the Rev. Arthur Logan, the black pastor of the Union Baptist Church and a member of the City Council. ''There are many people in Mississippi who made these same mistakes early in life, but their strong Christian character brought them closer to God and helped them change.'' ...

'He grew up like a lot of white people here,'' said the Rev. George L. Barnes, a black minister who is pastor at two Missionary Baptist churches and owns a used-car lot. ''But his daddy and my daddy used to swim together down in the creek, and I've never heard him say a racist thing. I would say, of people in his age bracket, he's probably come further than any white man I know of.''

Firestone gets at the condescension for these local yokels felt by the state and national liberal interest-group tacticians who decided to make Pickering a test case, and who argue (in Firestone's words) that Pickering's hometown supporters "simply did not know the full details of his record" or had "succumbed to an effort to cover up his feeling with small acts of kindness." The locals' response?

''If he's been putting on a show for us, it's the greatest show on earth,'' said Mr. Thomas, who runs the city's only black-owned pharmacy and who served with Mr. Pickering on the local economic development board in the 1980's.

If Firestone had found a lot of black local criticism of Pickering, don't you think the New York Times would have publicized it? They sent a reporter and he found the opposite, which is more convincing than, say, the Washington Times finding the same thing. ... It says here on NEXIS that the NYT ran Firestone's pro-Pickering piece on page 22, though I remember it as being more prominently played than that page number suggests). They didn't really run it in the "Travel" section, did they? (That's certainly the way it now looks on the Web). ...

[PJ-Comix]

If Firestone had found a lot of black local criticism of Pickering, don't you think the New York Times would have publicized it?

Absolutely and given it a headline.

[PJ-Comix]

They didn't really run it in the "Travel" section, did they?

LOL! I thought that was just a joke but when I clicked on the link they sure did file this "unwanted" story in the NY Times Travel Section. I guess this is a new technique at the NY Times. Whenever a story doesn't fit the party line, they bury it in a section completely unrelated to the topic. What next? Will the NY Times stick an column that doesn't follow the "party line" on economics in the Food Section?

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Redbob]

"What next? Will the NY Times stick an column that doesn't follow the "party line" on economics in the Food Section?"

Well sure!
You use money to buy food, don't you?

[chiller]

They didn't really run it in the "Travel" section, did they?

It can't be true..but it's the NYT, so I suppose I can believe it.

Too rich. One for the NYT archives.

[PJ-Comix]

It can't be true..but it's the NYT, so I suppose I can believe it.

I checked the link out earlier this morning and it was definitely buried in the Travel Section. But now the work isn't working. Could it be possible that the NY Times found out about this Mickey Kaus story and purposely taken down the link so as not to embarrass itself? I'll check the link later but right now it is NOT working even though I saw it earlier.

[PJ-Comix]

I know the link to the NY Times Travel Story was working when I first posted this thread. I also know that folks at the NY Times constantly monitor the FR. Could it be that one of them spotted this story and quickly informed the NY Times editors to make that link unworkable? You be the judge but the timing of this link not working is sure suspicious.

[bandleader]

The New York Slimes won't be deterred by the fact that there is NO local black opposition to Charles Pickering!!I have faith that they will INVENT something to suit their purpose!!!

[PJ-Comix]

Hey! The NY Times LINK to this story is now UP AND RUNNING. Check it out. It is DEFINITELY buried in their TRAVEL SECTION.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[NittanyLion]

LOL! I thought that was just a joke but when I clicked on the link they sure did file this "unwanted" story in the NY Times Travel Section.

Unbelievable. I'm absolutely speechless!

[chiller]

Not to worry. It's too late. The World knows. Not only will this bring more attention to Pickerings support, but the NYT attempt to bury it. We can reasonably assume NYT watches Kausfiles like a hawk, if not FR.

The libs are on the run ! Tallyho!

[chiller]

Think Rush knows? He'd appreciate this one.

[PJ-Comix]

The NY Times LINK is working now. As you can see at the top of the page, the NY Times definitely did bury this story in their Travel Section. I sure would love to hear Howlin' Raines' rationale for this story placement.

[chiller]

Suddenly LOL has new meaning to me. I'm crackin' up here.

[PJ-Comix]

The NY Times LINK is working now. As you can see at the top of the page, the NY Times definitely did bury this story in their Travel Section. I sure would love to hear Howlin' Raines' rationale for this story placement.

[PJ-Comix]

God, I LOVE the Internet. In the old days, the NY Times could have gotten away with burying unwanted stories in the Travel (or Food) Section but nowadays these tactics backfire on them BIGTIME because popular Internet websites highlight their sneaky tactics. Now this story will be made more popular than ever because of the NY Times' pathetic attempt to bury this story in their Travel Section.

Calling Rush! Calling O'Reilly! Calling Hannity!

[PJ-Comix]

Think Rush knows? He'd appreciate this one.

This is just TOO FUNNY for Rush to ignore. It would be great for Drudge to feature this as well.

[aristeides]

Would Howell Raines or some underling have made the decision to bury the story in the travel section?

[lepton]

When it was discovered that nearly every detail of Hillary's "Pretty-in-Pink" speech on her investments was false, the NYT put it in their Style section - where very few who care would look, and those who would look, wouldn't care.

[PJ-Comix]

Would Howell Raines or some underling have made the decision to bury the story in the travel section?

Most likely Howlin' Raines will BLAME an underling. See, it was all just an "error." Heh-heh.