MSM chooses NOT to Print a Potentially Negative Article About Then-Candidate Obama and ACORN
around lunchtime on Monday, the 18th of May 2009 by Katie
And the sad truth is – the “real story” is that no one is even the faintest bit surprised….
New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story.
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…..
The aborted story that gave rise to the Obama/ACORN controversy centers around information provided by Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee whom Hoyt acknowledges “fed information to Stephanie Strom of The Times for several articles on troubles within the group.” Apparently the information MonCrief provided was good.
We know this because Strom broke a number of important stories about ACORN and surely much of the information she used came from her trusted source Anita MonCrief…..
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its “maxed out donor list” and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group’s employees “to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”
Hoyt writes that Strom received from MonCrief “a spreadsheet purporting to be the Obama donor list, but there was no on-the-record source or other way to verify that the list came from the Obama campaign.” MonCrief agreed to go on the record but the NYT suddenly discovered that she had “a credibility problem” because she “had been fired by Acorn for using an official credit card for personal expenses.”
To repeat, although the newspaper knew of the supposed credibility problem, it found MonCrief’s information highly reliable in previous ACORN articles. All of sudden MonCrief was deemed not credible on a story that might have an adverse impact on Obama’s candidacy.
Hoyt wrote that Suzanne Daley, the national editor, “called a halt to Strom’s pursuit of the Obama angle.”
Hoyt then presents an expert opinion about how, even if true, MonCrief’s allegations would not have been a game-changer for the election.
The New York Times is the same paper that ran with an article about McCain having an affair with a much younger lobbyist, earlier in the campaign. This article was so “credible” that they later (one whole year later) retracted that gem.
But, for some reason, the Times used a much higher “credibility” standard as regards Obama.
And the Times then tries to explain it away by stating that it wouldn’t have been a “game-changer”. Let me think, an article about Obama’s campaign bending campaign finance rules by asking ACORN to basically launder money for them, and the article hitting close to election day – and that wouldn’t be a “game-changer”.
Even if it wasn’t – and the nimrods who voted for Obama would have still voted for Obama – since when does the media only print “game-changing” articles?
There is a reason that the Constitution grants “freedom of the press” – and this example isn’t it….
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more.
![[del.icio.us]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Sphere]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Email]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
May 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
new york times acorn
May 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Old Russian saying…You can tell same lie 1000 time(Ms Pelosi) but not change truth!
Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”
In Russia government make media say what they want – even if lie.
In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want – even if lie..
…..eventually they become same thing?!
I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormaro.org
May 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Igor.. i had to check your “birth cert” for “Obama”.. too cool..
“file # we forget to get one”
& “baby baraky born in kenya”..
and yes.. a lie is a lie no matter how many times it is told.. sadly if you are adored by the media for whatever twisted reason.. apparently lies x 1,000 = truth (as they believe it.. and the believers believe it).. sigh!
Katie.. great item.. and interesting they would not print something that was not a “game-changer”.. they just would not print it fearing it would be a game changer. perhaps some of the fruit-loops drooling over obama might wise up.. they could not risk that.. (muttering to myself now.. I gave up on screaming, I am no doubt drowned out by all the other screams)
May 19th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Igor.. i had to check your “birth cert” for “Obama”.. too cool..
“file # we forget to get one”
& “baby baraky born in kenya”..
and yes.. a lie is a lie no matter how many times it is told.. sadly if you are adored by the media for whatever twisted reason.. apparently lies x 1,000 = truth (as they believe it.. and the believers believe it).. sigh!
Katie.. great item.. and interesting they would not print something that was not a “game-changer”.. they just would not print it fearing it would be a game changer. perhaps some of the fruit-loops drooling over obama might wise up.. they could not risk that.. (muttering to myself now.. I gave up on screaming, I am no doubt drowned out by all the other screams)
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
May 21st, 2009 at 7:20 am
You know, I’m sitting here pulling my hair out….
Before the election, there were murmers about questionable ties to Obama. The voters chose to ignore them, largely. These were things that they should have investigated on their own. They should have done their “due diligence”.
What many people fail to see is that media can show its bias – not only by what they say – but what they don’t say. The media chose not to investigate many aspects of the Obama cartel. They did it because they desperately wanted Obama to win.
The media decided that the voters didn’t need to know about ties between ACORN and Obama. Normally, this is a story that should have had a journalist frothing at the mouth in excitement. This time, the cancelled it. And come out with the “not a game-changer” excuse. Gee – that didn’t stop them from accepting a forged document that put Bush in a bad light. But, the media decided for the voters that the voters wouldn’t want to know about questionable (yes illegal) dealings….
And, sad to say, the voters were so brain dead that they probably wouldn’t have cared.
And now the voters will wear their brown shirts – 63% approve of what Obama is doing. Amazing, because I have yet to find one good thing….