Topic category: Government/Politics
Obama Favoritism Toward The New York Times Was Earned
"Why reporters are down on Obama," by Politico's Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin" (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=42A9C609-18FE-70B2-A84A2D8F74C77116), is noteworthy, because it highlights the Obama/New York Times relationship.
Hot Air's Allahpundit: "It’s a long piece, but don’t be daunted. This is the most fun you’ll have all day." (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/28/reporters-surprised-to-find-white-house-is-thin-skinned-and-controlling/?utm_source=co2hog).
Hot Air's Allahpundit excerpted the key part of the article:
"Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:
— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.
— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.
— Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.
— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper — The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time."
Allahpundit astutely observed: "The One frankly can afford to tell the press to piss off. He knows their political sympathies will never let them really turn on him, especially with the wicked Republican 'teabaggers' suddenly threatening Democratic power. And he knows that widespread contempt for the media will never allow the public to side with them against him — due in part, ironically, to the fact that the media itself helped shape perceptions of this guy as being as guileless as a cross between Bambi and Jesus. I make a living off criticizing The One and even I can’t help relishing the thought of him flipping off some of the same people who sold him as a type of avatar sent to deliver America from its political and racial sins. You wanted him? You got him. Be more careful next time."
But neither the Politico co-authors or Allahpundit asked, much less answered, the obvious question: why does "one paper — The New York Times" receive that favoritism from Obama and his staff?
The Politico co-authors on the favoritism:
"It's one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.
"But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces — then, in their view, lied about it.
"It was last September in Pittsburgh, when about 20 journalists were attending an off-the-record dinner with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel during the G-20 summit. Also in attendance: New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger, a White House favorite."
“'It's clearly the case that they're playing favorites,' said Bloomberg’s Chen, when asked about the White House’s relationship to the Times. 'It's kind of par for the course. Some people understand that — none of us really like it — but that's the way the administration does business.'
"Gibbs denied an 'unnecessary advantage'.... to the Times.... Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be 'absurd' to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t."
So why does The Times have a "necessary advantage"?
Hot Air commenter suggested an answer:
"...Obama has his boys carrying the water, and he is happy with who they are.
"He has plenty to do his bidding, and the ones who complain, they are just shut out.
"Which means people like the NYT just gets bigger and better scoops.
"The problem is, they can only 'scoop' what is given to them so they miss the ACORN, Tea Party, voter intimidation, Planned Parenthood, and many other stories…."
It's NOT a matter of missing a story; it's a matter of trying.
The answer to the "why" question and America's big problem is that The New York Times covered up an Obama/ACORN expose to protect then presidential candidate Obama.
Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit's Hot Air boss emeritus, in Culture of Corruption, at p. 247: "[New York Times public editor Clark] Hoyt airily dismissed the charges by ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief as 'nonsense' and quoted a Times editor who shrugged, 'You have to cut bait after a while.' It wasTimes's editors in pursuing and publishing the Star magazine-quality insinuations that GOP presidential candidate John McCain had carried on an affair with Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman.) Hoyt attempted to paint MonCrief as an unreliable source. But Times reporter Stephanie Strom had happily relied on her for months to break a series of ACORN corruption stories. And e-mail messages from Strom show not only the New York Times reporter's repeated praise and gratitude for MonCrief's information, but also her concurrence with MonCrief's assessment of the vast, money-funneling ACORN enterprise."
Obama owes The New York Times big time.
Michael J. Gaynor
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Gaynor's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.