The NY Times has been largely silent on the ACORN fiasco until today, with an article titled Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe. The Times befools itself with the following analysis of why no one previously was able to convince the Obama administration to sever ties to and funding of ACORN:
But it took amateur actors, posing as a prostitute and a pimp and recorded on hidden cameras in visits to Acorn offices, to send government officials scrambling in recent days to sever ties with the organization.
There was a time when the NY Times did investigative reporting. No more, unless there is an opportunity to embarrass former Bush administration officials or expose some element of our intelligence apparatus.
A couple of amateurs with a video camera did more to expose fraud and corruption in Obama’s base than the entire staff of the NY Times. And The Times doesn’t see the irony in criticising such people as “amateurs.”
UPDATE: More on the NY Times and ACORN from Don Surber and Hugh Hewitt.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Just saw a Daily Show with Jon Stewart short from Monday night where he rips the MSM for allowing "Two kids who look like they stepped off the set of High School Musical 3" to scoop them. Priceless.
Oh, the episode is called "The Audacity of Hos." When you've lost Jon Stewart, you've lost the war. Obama should get in front of this ASAP.
My memory is the New York Times doesn't have to investage anymore. They have proudly admited the White House has there reporters and editors numbers and when they need a story planted..err braught into the public light they call the New York Times.
Most of the leaks during the Bush years were much of the same Democratic Civil servents that didn't agree with Bush but had Clearance and were more than happy to do the digging for the Times.
I does make you wonder if they how government money is spent is along as its spent along idealogical lines.
The Times did the same sort of thing when it came to the exposure of Garlasco. (He was exposed by right wingers working at the behest of the Israeli government.) David Bernstein did a good takedown of the attitude that permeated that article.
How many more of Barack Obama's associates have to be thrown under the bus before people begin to question the character of a man who surrounds himself with such people in the first place?
Not for nothing has the NYT been nicknamed Pravda On the Hudson.
And that Jon Stewart video is simply priceless, even to us NON-Stewart fans.
The NYT doesn't know how to do investigative journalism anymore.
Did they ever? Their big scoop during the election season was about a McCain staffer who thought he knew someone who'd heard McCain was playing lock 'n' load with a lobbyist and was so thin it made hearsay definitive..
Dr. Jacobson, let me play the Devil's Advocate for a brief moment here. I know this is late on the draw but just came across the response to said "scandal" re: ACORN.
Said one writer on another popular blog:
(sic)
"Actually FOX's coverage of ACORN is quintessential demonstration of its bias:
Fox presents claims of "Voter Fraud By Acorn" as factual.
Yet in its coverage it FAILS to report the fact that ACORN was acutally FOLLOWING ELECTION LAW EXACTLY – namely that organizations that collect voter registration cards are FORBIDDEN from evaluating their content
Fox then presents the illegally obtained video from Okeefe and Giles as 'factual'. And FAILS to point out that
TAX ADVISORS ARE Legally obligated to protect the fiduciary privacy interests of those they are advising
Tax advisors Are doing their job the way THE IRS REQUIRES when they help taxpayers fill out the forms
Okeefe and Giles BROKE THE LAW in filming those videos without permission
Okeefe and Giles are so increadibly over the top (Okeefe's idea of a pimp is Huggy Bear) that the simply aren't believable
So Fox actually FAILS to report the FACTS in the ACORN case, instead reporting innuendo as fact.
Well?