0 votes

NY Times admits it deep-sixed Ron Paul

"In Sunday's Times, public editor Arthur S. Brisbane wrote of the decision to deep-six the only candidate in the race who has anything interesting to say.

Here's what Brisbane wrote:

In a Dec. 4 column, I wrote about journalists’ reflex to impose their own narrative on a race, a dynamic that can eclipse what candidates are actually saying. Well, as last week’s Iowa caucuses demonstrated, the Republican nomination contest steadfastly resists any coherent narrative.

Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, and Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator. Their strong showings on Tuesday, following the serial derailments of other contenders, showed just how hard it is for the paper to read the plotline of this contest."

EDIT-------------------------

As in that instance, someone at the times needs to be told he's in the wrong line of work. And that someone is political editor Richard Stevenson. In that Dec. 4 column, Brisbane quotes Stevenson on the effort to keep Paul out of the paper:

One candidate who seems to float outside this dynamic is Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian. The Project for Excellence in Journalism says he is getting weak coverage despite poll numbers now putting him in the top half of the pack.

On this point, Steve Bowen, a Times reader in Tulsa, Okla., wrote me to say: “One must wonder about why The Times and other major media refuse to allow their reporters to cover Ron Paul in at least the amounts afforded to other candidates. Especially those who poll well below his numbers.”

Which brings us back to Mr. Stevenson and The Times’s approach to a campaign that wants to be epic but remains stuck in its pre-epic phase.

“Not all candidates are created equal,” he said. “We do not feel compelled to treat every candidate with the same intensity or seriousness as we do others.”

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/01/the_times_admit...

Yeah, tell us something we didn't know. But it's still good for the public record come judgement day.

On a side note, as much as I do not care for Mitt Romney, the NY Times Sunday had three--count them---THREE anti- Romney editorials that ran roughshod not only on his LDS faith, but for portraying him as a supposedly self-style "Great White Hope" to defeat Obama. There is no end to smear and race card tactics that the NY Times will not stoop to. I will be so glad when this over-leveraged and socialist house organ goes bankrupt for good.



Trending on the Web