Gay Patriot Header Image

Why isn’t the New York Times investigating Buffy Wicks?

This past weekend, I, like many conservative bloggers, weighed in on Clark Hoyt’s Sunday New York Times column about his paper’s sloth in reporting several stories which right-leaning websites had broken.  As Hoyt acknowledged the Old Gray Lady’s errors, you’d think the paper, in addition to appointing what James Taranto has termed, “Secret Agent Editors” to monitor the rightosphere, might show that it means business by working double time to crack open even further stories that first appeared on the web.

They might want to investigate the claim by the new chair of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Rocco Landesman that “former NEA Director of Communications [Yosi Sergant was acting] unilaterally* and without the approval or authorization of then-Acting Chairman Patrice Walker Powell” when he initiated a conference call urging artists (recipients of his agency’s grants) to help push Obamacare.

As far as the NEA was concerned, Yosi may well have been acting unilaterally.  But, others in the Administration knew of his actions; another Obama appointee was in on the call, Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.  If this White House official was in on a call with one federal agency and its supposedly non-partisan grant recipients, then it stands to reason she (or one of her colleagues) may have participated in other such investigations.

Why isn’t the Times delving further to see if this was an isolated occurrence or standard practice at the Obama White House?  Maybe there were other such calls–but this was the only one that happened to be recorded.

Are journalists from news outlets like the Times trying to make up for their failure to get these stories by digging deeper, perhaps trying to gain access to White House phone records–or even to probe Ms. Wicks herself to ask her why she participated on this call?  Who put her up to this?  Did other people in the White House know, say her boss, Valerie Jarrett or the President’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel?

Well, it doesn’t seem that Times is all that interested in Ms. Wicks.  Using the paper’s own search engine, I found no documents for “Buffy Wicks.” A google site search yielded only two references, one to a Facebook-like TimesPeople page (which allows individuals to “share the best of NYTimes.com with friends”), the other to a pre-inaugural story on the President’s proposed National Day of Service which she would be overseeing.

I bet the Times would have dispatched an entire team of reporters to investigate if they had they learned an official in the Bush White House had participated in a conversation similar to the one Ms. Wicks was in on.  If the Times as committed to reporting the news as Clark Hoyt contends, they’d be investigating Buffy Wicks.  And not just her, her White House colleagues and Capitol Hill counterparts involved in activities which would have earned them scrutiny if there were an (R) instead of a (D) after their names.

*(Emphasis added.)

Share

7 Comments

  1. Valerie Jarrett is the enabler. Why doesn’t the NYT investigate her? According Michelle Malkin’s book, Valarie Jarrett and her co-investors own the slum property where they hope to build the Chicago Olympics.

    Obama’s tainted help are all engaged in one thing: getting their hands on tax dollars. They know that the deepest pockets anywhere is the treasury. Every aspect of their financial lives involves grabbing state and federal funds.

    Comment by heliotrope — September 30, 2009 @ 8:10 am - September 30, 2009

  2. Why isn’t the New York Times investigating Buffy Wicks?

    Because the mainstream press is nothing but the PR wing of the Democrat party. Next question.

    Comment by V the K — September 30, 2009 @ 8:18 am - September 30, 2009

  3. On a related note, I bet if Glenn Beck had daydreamed about Obama’s assassination, the left-wing media would explode with the bright hot fury of a thousand suns. But when a left-wing homosexual author does it, it’s no big deal.

    Comment by V the K — September 30, 2009 @ 10:02 am - September 30, 2009

  4. “I bet the Times would have dispatched an entire team of reporters to investigate if they had they learned an official in the Bush White House had participated in a conversation similar to the one Ms. Wicks was in on.”

    I’ll bet they wouldn’t
    It took them a while to figure out that the attorney general firings was an actual story.
    Hell they still can’t call Cheney a war criminal.

    Sadly the mainstream is slow to pick up on the noise of both the right and left.

    But as the folks in Politico know, its the conservative outlets who drive media narriatives….so be patient and wait for drudge to scream it a few times, it will be front story news soon enough. The media usually follows the right’s lead.

    Comment by gillie — September 30, 2009 @ 10:07 am - September 30, 2009

  5. Hmm, that might be because the US attourneys serve at the ‘whim of the president’.

    And since VP Cheney isn’t a war criminal, there’s no point in calling him that.

    Try again, whack-a-mole.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 30, 2009 @ 10:23 am - September 30, 2009

  6. Or, whack-a-troll.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 30, 2009 @ 10:35 am - September 30, 2009

  7. It took them a while to figure out that the attorney general firings was an actual story.

    Maybe because it wasn’t a story but rather the frothings of the insane? Perhaps they didn’t want to become even more irrelevant than they already are?

    But as the folks in Politico know, its the conservative outlets who drive media narriatives

    Since when?

    so be patient and wait for drudge to scream it a few times,

    Drudge became a Conservative…..when?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - September 30, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.