The New York Times0"> The New York Times0">
Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  June 29, 2009
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Government/Politics

Bill O'Reilly: Get Back to "War" With The New York Times

The New York Times did not make reparations to any Duke lacrosse player. Instead, The New York Times went from backing bogus charges for the sake of the political correctness agenda to covering up the truth about Obama and ACORN to secure the election of their choice for President of the United States. The New York Times won't make reparations. It needs a bailout. But, after the latest Congressional apology for slavery, the taxpayers may soon be paying reparations for slavery, thanks to New York Times knavery. After all, it's the Age of Obama!

The odds are long that the King of Cable News, Bill O'Reilly, will be canonized, but he does cover some stories that the alphabet networks--ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC--refuse to report and recently he did dramatically declare "war" on The New York Times.

Those things will count in his favor when God decides what to do with him.

Tragically, O'Reilly's "war" on The New York Times was interrupted by the murder of the notorious late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. O'Reilly had spoken out strongly against late term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller for trivial or pretextual reasons (another point in O'Reilly's favor). Instead of going on offense against The New York Times on the ACORN/Obama front, O'Reilly has been preoccupied with playing defense, on his own show and elsewhere, against the baseless charge that he was complicit in the Tiller murder.

That's been wonderful for President Obama, ACORN and The New York Times, because O'Reilly has not had ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief and Heather Heidelbaugh (an attorney for whom Ms. MonCrief had testified in the Pennsylvania ACORN case last October) back on his show to respond to New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt (who had presumed to take the "last word" on the subject in his second column defending The New York Times against the charge that it had spiked an Obama/ACORN expose for political purposes. (Distractions, be they the Tiller murder, or the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farah Faucett, or the disclosure of the adultery of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, keep the media focus away from how The New York Times spiked an Obama/ACORN expose and how the Obama campaign and ACORN illicitly coordinated to capture the White House.)

Of course, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller is not admitting that The New York Times did anything "wrong" or "political."

Keller in December 2007: "…we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a pre-conceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.”

Michelle Malkin set people straight in "The immortal words of NYTimes chief Bill Keller," May 18, 2009 10:58 AM

" Keller’s rhetoric to reality. Over the weekend, NYTimes public editor Clark Hoyt admitted that the Times killed a story on supposedly non-partisan ACORN’s coordination with Barack Obama’s old friends at Project Vote. Hoyt calls it 'The Tip That Didn’t Pan Out.'..."

As to why The New York Times killed the expose, Ms. Malkin quoted Ms. Heidelbaugh's Congressional testimony and teelingly added:

"Hoyt undertakes to show that this charge was false.

"He admits, though, that Strom’s editor, Suzanne Daley, 'called a halt to Strom’s pursuit of the Obama angle.' So the Times did kill the investigation and any further reporting."

EXACTLY! And on April 1, 2009, O'Reilly played the voicemail from Ms. Strom admitting it (thanks to Ms. MonCrief).

Matthew Vadum, in The American Spectator:

"Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.

"But the admission on Sunday, which came seven months after NYT staff reporter Stephanie Strom’s reporting about possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN last year, took the form of a snarky column from Clark Hoyt, the Old Gray Lady’s 'public editor.' Hoyt used the word 'nonsense' to describe the allegations of impropriety leveled against ACORN and the Obama campaign…."

What is nonsense is Keller's claim that The New York Times does not pursue a political agenda.

Ms. Malkin:

“'We do not manipulate or die facts to advance an agenda?' The Times suppressed the truth about ObamACORN by its own weasel-worded admission.

“'Agnostic as to where a story may lead?' The cult worshipers at the Times are 'enchanted”' with the man in the White House.

“'Independence from political and economic interests?' The Times has sold $2 million worth of Obama-themed merchandise, according to NYTimes reporter Jennifer 8 Lee, who boasted that 'Obama is good for the bottom line.

"Stick a pin in Bill Keller’s self-delusional thought and pop it. Boop."

IS it self-delusion...or a calculated falsehood?

Last March O'Reilly discovered that The New York Times had spiked an Obama/ACORN expose near the end of October. (If he had read my October 22, 2008 article about Ms. MonCrief that day, he would have discovered it then, as others, including some at Fox News, learned before Election Day 2008.)

)Earlier last March, Ms. Heidelbaugh testified about the expose spiking before a House Judiciary subcommittee.

Ms. Heidelbaugh: "...Ms. Moncrief, who is a Democrat and a supporter of the President, revealed that the Obama Presidential Campaign had sent its maxed out donor list to Karen Gillette of the Washington, DC ACORN office and asked Gillette and Ms. Moncrief to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN. Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama Campaign, [New York Times national correspondent Stephanie] Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at the New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, 'it was a game changer'. That's when Ms. MonCrief telephoned me on October 21, 2008. Ms. Strom never wrote another article about ACORN for the New York Times for the remainder of the period before Election Day, i.e. November 4, 2008."

Alas, it took Senator John McCain much too long to discover how bad both ACORN and The New York Times really are.

Ms. Malkin, "Team McCain has an epiphany: The NYTimes is a left-wing rag!," September 22, 2008 06:34 PM


"After years of John McCain basking in the glow of NYTimes-conferred maverick status, after enjoying heaps of praise from the open-borders editorial board for his shamnesty efforts, and after touting the NYTimes editorial endorsement on the McCain campaign website just eight short months ago, Team McCain has discovered — gasp! — that the NYTimes is a pro-Obama propaganda machine.

"No, really.

"Knock me over with a feather."

In a post on April 12, 2007 11:16 AM, Ms. Malkin asked "Isn’t it time to hold the NYTimes accountable…"

Ms. Malkin had in mind "victimizing and demonizing the Duke lacrosse players" and suggested a front-page apology.

There was no apology to the players.

Instead Hoyt's Public Editor predecessor essentially absolved The New York Times of any blame.

Andrea Peyser of The New York Post on "why lie?":

"Worst of all, this story so neatly fit the radical agenda of our 'newspaper of record,' The New York Times, that the paper disgustingly advanced the hoax on its front page, long after other media outlets had backed off.

"In a case of 'all the lies fit to print,' the paper on Aug. 25 affected an air of Timesian authority in a damning article, spoon-fed by DA Nifong. It tried to put to rest some of the alarming inconsistencies in the accuser’s story about the night she was 'attacked.'

"'While there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury,' quoth the Times. And, 'The full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense.'

"Will the Times make reparations now?"

The New York Times did not make reparations to any Duke lacrosse player. Instead, The New York Times went from backing bogus charges for the sake of the political correctness agenda to covering up the truth about Obama and ACORN to secure the election of their choice for President of the United States. The New York Times won't make reparations. It needs a bailout. But, after the latest Congressional apology for slavery, the taxpayers may soon be paying reparations for slavery, thanks to New York Times knavery. After all, it's the Age of Obama!

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to 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,,, and 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

Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2009 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2021 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved