Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Over at the Washington Examiner, Byron York cites corrections New York Times editors (or writer Eric Lipton himself?) made from the original online version of their story attacking House Minority Leader John Boehner for his ties to lobbyists, corrections which reveal the method behind the Old Gray Lady’s “hatchet job“:
The statement that a lobbyist “won” Boehner’s backing was changed to one in which a lobbyist “sought” Boehner’s backing. That’s a rather critical change. The Times also added Boehner’s defense that these were long-held positions.
We should also note that Lipton doesn’t name this lobbyist in his article while a named Boehner staffer.
Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel, however, was wiling to explain to the Times why his boss voted the way he did on the issues where the paper alleged lobbyist influence:
Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. “Yes, that is correct,” Steel responded to Lipton, adding “I can tell you why, if you care.” Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton.
This gruel, as they say, is pretty thin, with John Steele Gordon at Commentary Contentions wondering if Boehner’s ties to lobbyists are “‘especially tight’? Who knows? The Times gives no examples whatever of the dealings of other Congressional leaders with lobbyists“:
This article, which alleges no wrongdoing and gives no comparisons, is simply an attempt to further the Democrats’ plan to demonize Boehner. It is water carrying, plain and simple, proving only that the Times’s ties with the Democratic Party are especially tight.
The White House and its allies have elevated Boehner to the status of a target in the run-up to the November elections. On its face there isn’t much to Lipton’s story about Boehner. More than anything else it signifies that the Times is playing its traditional role as media adjunct of the Democratic Party. To use the Washington cliché, it’s business as usual.
During the week, the president attacked Boehner.* On the weekend, the Times follows suit, without giving that Republican a chance to explain his votes. The writer took the “word of an anonymous lobbyist” while refusing, in the words of Boehner’s spokesman, “to get the information to prove that this allegation was false.”
New media seem to have blunted the effect of the Old Gray Lady’s hatchet. Before the official publication date of the paper’s hard copy, the paper’s bias had already been challenged, with the paper quickly correcting the original text. They can’t get away with hatchet jobs like they once could.
Perhaps, they’re trying to help build the negatives of a man about whom most Americans have yet to form an opinion. But, given their rise of alternative media, quick to call them on their bias as well as their declining readership, they lack the power they once had to so bring down a politician, particularly with such gruel as thin as this.
——–
*Bonus question: in the fall of 2006, does then-President George W. Bush ever attack then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi?
NB: Shortly after posting this, I took note in the flow of my prose at certain parts in the post, so tried to smooth it out, making minor corrections hither, thither and yon.
UPDATE: Via Doug Powers @ Michelle Malkin, we learn that White House Press Secretary “Robert Gibbs is pitching the Times’ Boehner piece on Twitter like the Sham-Wow guy”.
The New York Times is running defense for the Obama Administration which further shrinks the Times into a withering grey lady in a forgotten nursing home for Death Panels.
However, Obama’s attacks on Boehner will turn into nothing given his name recognition. More people know more of Rep. Nancy Pelosi & Senator Harry Reid before they know Rep. John Boehner.
When you consider how many people barely know who’s president, and how many more DON’T know who’s vice-president (even when it’s V.P. Bite-Me), it must be hard to choose a lowly representative to demonize and try to make the face of the Republican party, especially when his crime is not-voting for some government action.
I know I’M thinking he MUST have been bought and paid for if he didn’t vote for Cap and Tax, or otherwise increasing the cost of our energy by increasing fees on energy producers. I wonder who bought him, maybe a majority of the American people?
I am so tired of fact-checking.
or like @iowahawkblog posted on the twitts thingy:
@iowahawkblog NYT Top Story: WH Quotes NYT Report of WH
Citing NYT Story Outlining WH Allegations of Boehner’s Cozy Lobby Ties
Anyone else catch “Face the Nation” this morning? Seems Bob “I didn’t know anything about those Black Panthers” Schieffer got the memo to try and go after the future Speaker of the House:
Yeah Bob, you miserable, obfuscating bastard. He sure could.
You know who else might wanna quit (and NOT lie about it this time)???
Yeah. THAT guy.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Rule 11
Well, gastorgrab, I suppose when you look at it that way, it doesn’t really matter if the target is plucked from obscurity, IF you can bring him to the forefront of the voters’ minds.
On the other hand, there are some who would argue that any mention of one’s name is a good thing; at least when the voters get to the polls, you’ll be fresh in their minds. Sounds like Boehner at least has the smokers’ vote, not to mention the votes of people who believe in true freedom of choice (e.g., the libertarians).
There are many who think Mayor Bloomburg has gone too far, banning smoking and transfats and, maybe soon, salt — all for our own good, of course.
Identifying Boehner as a villain is the standard socialist tactic. It’s not an argument at all.
By blaming the failure of the Obama administration on the minority leader, President Obama is admitting that his own government is ineffective…..it hasn’t accomplished anything despite having a clear majority in all houses of government. His excuse is that a minority leader with no power at all has somehow obstructed the normal function of government. They have been unable to fix anything they promised to fix during the 2008 elections.
Wasn’t he supposed to “Change” everything?
The only way to fail with a CLEAR MAJORITY IN ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT is if your proposals are too extreme for the certain members of YOUR OWN party. There is no other explanation. Government has failed, and Democrats were in the drivers seat!
Any other explanation is a flat-out lie! It doesn’t matter how severe the problem was, Barack Obama promised the American people in 2008 that he could ‘fix it’.
He’s either an idiot, or a liar! (Quite possibly, he’s both.)
.
The MFM aren’t even trying to hide their bias anymore; they’re all MSDNC.
And why would a lobbyist brag about buying a politician, even anonymously? Doesn’t that seem like kind of a no-no in that profession? I thought they wanted politicians that stayed bought once they were bought. Going to the NYT with such information would sour their investment in the politician.
Once again, gastorgrab, you need to remember how uninformed the average American is about their government. Many actually believe it was Bill Clinton who balanced the federal budget (or at least came close to balancing it), completely forgetting the Republican Congress. It’s as if no one knows that it’s the CONGRESS that spends the money and makes the tax law. The president can only do his best to stop Congress. (President Clinton wisely did little to stop his Republican Congress.)
So how likely is it that the average American realizes that for the past two years the Republicans have had NO power. None. Zero. In fact, The O’s response to any Republican suggestion was a stoney, “I won.” He was uninterested in their input. And they could do nothing to stop anything he and his party wanted to do.
But The O knows that they know not, and he hopes to capitalize on their ignorance. With the MFM on his side, there’s a teeny tiny chance he might succeed, if only minimally.
It’s congress that decides how “our” money is spent, and Nancy Pelosi has been spending as much as she possibly can since January, 2007. Can you guess when this recession started?
Democrats have been given a blank check with absolute control of government, and they’ve screwed up everything. Every Liberal-Democratic idea that has been touted for the last 20 years as ‘the answer to all our problems’, has now been tried and has failed miserably! I don’t see this so much as a failure of Barack Obama, but as a failure of the Progressive ideology itself……..again!
The way i see things, slavery was/is a form of Socialism. The slave-master had total control of the plantations labor force, and was responsible for meeting all of the slaves’ needs; food, shelter, clothing, “veterinary care”….
.