Oct
31
2015
1

The New York Times vs. The New York Times on Presidential Prerogatives.

This story via the New York Times is… this is one of those times when you have to take the long view, perhaps. “The White House will try to block the release of a handful of emails between President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, citing longstanding precedent invoked by presidents of both parties to keep presidential communications confidential, officials said Friday.”  See, the problem here is that the White House has a point: Presidents from both parties have indeed long taken the position (I think, fairly) that they should be able to get unvarnished opinions from their advisers without having to worry about whether it’d be used for partisan purposes.  After all, as the New York Times goes on to note:

President Bush has said that Karl Rove, his closest adviser, and Harriet Miers, his former White House counsel, among others, do not have to comply with Congressional subpoenas because “the president relies upon his staff to give him candid advice.”

This may well end up in a constitutional showdown. If it does, there is no question about which side should prevail. Congress has a right, and an obligation, to examine all of the evidence, which increasingly suggests that the Bush administration fired eight or more federal prosecutors either because they were investigating Republicans, or refusing to bring baseless charges against Democrats. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Watergate tapes case, and other legal and historical precedents, make it clear that executive privilege should not keep Congress from getting the testimony it needs.

…Oops.  Sorry, that was what the New York Times argued in an ‘editorial’ in 2007.  My bad.  This is what the NYT says now: (more…)

Sep
16
2015
4

New York Times confirms The Daily Beast’s ISIS/intelligence scoop.

BOOM goes the dynamite: “A group of intelligence analysts have provided investigators with documents they say show that senior military officers manipulated the conclusions of reports on the war against the Islamic State, according to several government officials, as lawmakers from both parties voiced growing anger that they may have received a distorted picture about the military campaign’s progress.” Government inspectors specifically looking at CENTCOM (United States Central Command), which of course was the subject of a potentially devastating Daily Beast report from last week that alleged that precisely this was going on. Naturally, the New York Times doesn’t want to admit that the original problem arose largely because this administration hates being told things that it doesn’t like to hear, but at least the Times is taking the situation seriously, right? (more…)

Jul
13
2015
5

Politico, Amazon – and I guess the NYT, really – all help out Ted Cruz’s new book sales.

Come, I will conceal nothing from you: I have not read Ted Cruz’s A Time for Truth.  I generally do not buy partisan political books on my own, and I’m not on enough distribution lists to be routinely sent copies of the latest ones.  But this is looking worse and worse for the New York Times:

The New York Times’ refusal to put Ted Cruz’s memoir on its bestseller list is once again being called into question — this time by Amazon, the largest Internet retailer in the country.

On Sunday, an Amazon spokesperson told the On Media blog that the company’s sales data showed no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity for the Texas senator’s memoir, casting further doubt on the Times’ claim that the book — “A Time For Truth” — had been omitted from its list because sales had been driven by “strategic bulk purchases.”

(more…)

Jul
11
2015
5

The New York Times goes insane in its ‘edit’ of the Ellen Pao Reddit resignation story.

(H/T: Instapundit) If you’ve ever wondered why the New York Times doesn’t have the same reputation that it used to, well, this is why.

(more…)

Jun
09
2015
5

Tweet of the Day, I Wonder Whether Marco Rubio Is Self-Leaking This Stuff, Too edition.

Because stories like this won’t hurt him.

I mean, wow. Marco Rubio took some of the money that he got from a book deal and bought himself a boat. Does anybody in the New York Times actually talk to anybody outside of their cozy little epistemic closure bubble? …I mean, aside from people at Politico, of course.

Moe Lane

PS: Hey, New York Times: $14 million net loss for the last operating quarter, I believe? Since we’re keeping track, and everything.

Jun
08
2015
2

The NYT manages the appearance of impropriety coming AND going.

I’m impressed: this takes skill.

A charity administered by the New York Times received a $100,000 check from the Clinton Family Foundation on July 24, 2008, months after the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, according to a New York Times spokesperson.

However, the check was a “replacement check” for one that had been sent in 2007 that the Times never received, the spokesperson said.

(more…)

Jun
08
2015
1

Politico acts as bodyguard for New York Times against the Washington Free Beacon. AGAIN.

Quick background: the Washington Free Beacon reported that the New York Times took one hundred thousand in donations from the Clintons in the same year that the NYT’s owner overruled the editoral board to endorse… surprise surprise, Hillary Clinton. Now, let us be correct, here: nobody has come out and said that this was a bribe. Or a quid pro quo. Or even an ‘understanding.’  The Washington Free Beacon is merely asking questions and noting where the money is going, which is something that journalists are supposedly expected to do. (more…)

Apr
05
2015
2

Turns out donors really do notice which party doesn’t cater to anti-Semites.

(H/T Hot Air Headlines) Want to see a little panic?  The New York Times will indulge you.  Well, maybe not indulge you… or, at least, it’s not really happy about the situation. The paper is a little freaked out by the whole thing, in fact:

Republicans currently in the Senate raised more money during the 2014 election cycle in direct, federally regulated campaign contributions from individuals and political action committees deemed pro-Israel than their Democratic counterparts, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed for The New York Times by a second nonprofit, MapLight. The Republican advantage was the first in more than a decade.

The alliances in Congress that pro-Israel donors have built will certainly be tested as they lobby lawmakers to oppose the deal with Iran and perhaps even expand sanctions against the country, despite objections from the Obama administration.

(more…)

Jan
10
2015
2

The New York Times needs to get all of their people off of Facebook.

All of them: the rot has set in. To summarize… Marc Cooper, a journalism professor at USC (Annenberg), asked on Facebook what seems to be a fairly reasonable question: if the New York Times doesn’t think that Islamist fanatics killing a dozen people over the publication of satirical cartoons justifies showing said cartoons… hold on a minute.

charlie

Moving on… Marc Cooper asked: if the current number of murdered cartoonists, staffers, and cops weren’t enough to justify the NYT doing its job, then just how many murder victims would be sufficient? – Apparently, this question cooked off the NYT’s executive editor Dean Baquet, because Mr. Baquet went on Facebook to literally call Mr. Cooper an a*shole. (more…)

Oct
01
2014
4

Apparently, all of the (Democratic) political operatives that the NYT knows are functional sociopaths.

It’s the only explanation for this:

As Congress examines security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security.

…I had a more measured response planned, but Charles Cooke wrote it for me, and I’m not going to give Peter Baker the satisfaction of knowing that he made me swear at him.  But, yeah: this is the sort of nonsense that we have to deal with: people who work with monsters… and then assume that the rest of us are just the same kinds of monsters, just with a different colored tie.

It’s really kind of horrible, when you think about it.

Aug
21
2014
8

The New York Times reconciles itself to losing the Senate.

(H/T: Hot Air) It wouldn’t publish an article like this unless it had come to terms with the situation:

A Republican takeover of the Senate this fall would hurt Mr. Obama for the final two years of his presidency, but it might help Mrs. Clinton if she runs to succeed him.

Republican control of both the House and Senate would provide Mrs. Clinton a clearer target to run against in courting voters fatigued by Washington dysfunction. The longer an unpopular president and his more-unpopular partisan adversaries battle to a standstill, the easier it is to offer herself as a fresh start.

“It would be bad for the country,” said Stanley B. Greenberg, President Bill Clinton’s former pollster, but “total gridlock would allow Hillary to be the change.”

…Except, of course, for the minor problem that Hillary Clinton put into motion, and was the public face for, the current administration’s disastrous foreign policy record*.  To say nothing of the fact that a sixty-nine year old apparatchik is not exactly what one thinks of when one says ‘dynamic agent of change.’  But that’s just the NYT’s little ways.

What’s more interesting is that the Old Grey Lady is busily reassuring its readers about the sourness of those Senatorial grapes. Contra the Democratic argument – and not a few conservative ones –  there is no particular evidence that the Republican party is at any serious electoral risk vis a vis its policies and stated goals.  If there was, we wouldn’t be seeing the Republican party poised to take control of the Senate.  If you want to see what a political party out of tune with the electorate looks like, look at 2006**.  Or, indeed, 2010.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I was going to say ‘worst foreign policy record in American history,’ except that I have to be fair.  Barack Obama has not yet managed to get Washington, DC burned down by an invading army.

**2008 is what a party blindsided by an economic crisis and a new data-driven voter drive paradigm looks like.

Feb
23
2014
6

The @nytimes has a somewhat provincial audience itself, methinks.

I can’t say that I’m either particularly jubilant that Piers Morgan is going to lose his CNN gig, or obscurely depressed that the gun control movement will effectively lose such a particularly unhelpful spokesman for its cause.  It is a thing: I don’t watch CNN anyway and there’s always going to be somebody else who comes along with Morgan’s gift for negative PR.  (more…)

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com