home

NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberman

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 11:43:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

NYTimes' Jennifer Medina is caught by mcjoan of dailykos in one of the most blatantly dishonest news articles that I have seen:

The article then goes on to describe the contents of an e-mail Lamont had sent to Lieberman following his floor speech scolding Clinton. Well, partially describes the contents of the e-mail. Here's what the NYT says he wrote:

"At the time, Mr. Lamont wrote that he had 'supported the moral outrage' Mr. Lieberman expressed reluctantly because he 'thought it might make matters worse,' adding that 'unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive.' He urged Mr. Lieberman to 'stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess,' and suggested that 'It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.'

'I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous,' Mr. Lamont wrote. 'This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation.'"

Some careful editing there.

More than just careful, dishonest and a gross violation of journalistic principles.Medina purposefully omitted the opening and closing sentences of the second paragraph, utterly changing the meaning of Lamont's "outrage." The full text (provided on the flip) of the Lamont e-mail makes patent the dishonesty in Medina's reporting - Lamont was urging Lieberman to criticize the Starr inquisition and to not allow himself to be an enabler of Republican outrages (sound familiar?) Of course, Lieberman did not heed Lamont' s call. But see for yourself on the flip.

What Lamont ACTUALLY wrote:

I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because nobody expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior

I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to sta nd up and say as much, and I hoped your statement was the beginning of the end

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe he should be censured for lying--and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

Excuse me Ms. Medina, but your reporting is utterly dishonest and reprehensible. A censure of YOU and your editor are more than in order - it is compulsory.

Barney Calame, this is your cue.

< Muslims Seek Freedom in America | Book Club >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberman | 6 comments (6 topical)
    Re: NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberm (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    You hit the nail on the head.

    Re: NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberm (none / 0) (#2)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    So the NYT is a lying, corrupt, incompetent organization. You're just finding that out? Or you're upset they aren't going your way entirely? What the NYT is frequently busted for doing to the administration isn't so much fun when it's done to your side, is it? Hey. Tools work according to who's in charge and believing you'll always have the levers is a stupid idea. Anyway, are you ready to do what conservatives do, which is to ignore the NYT?

    Re: NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberm (none / 0) (#3)
    by orionATL on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    i am really glad to see such a clear explanation of this issue. i was getting a little confused about who had done what to whom before reading this.

    Re: NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberm (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    are you ready to do what conservatives do, which is to ignore the NYT? No, we prefer to gather information and then form a conclusion. Where on this site does it say the NYT is some kind of gospel?

    Re: NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberm (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 06:01:42 PM EST
    Forget about protesting in front of the white house, congress or some politicians house. We should hold massive protests, directed at all of mass media. We should demand that these outlets be closed.

    Re: NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberm (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    So the NYT is a lying, corrupt, incompetent organization.
    Like any large corporate structure, they have good and bad people with lesser or greater skills.
    Anyway, are you ready to do what conservatives do, which is to ignore the NYT?
    Then why do they keep reading and writing for it?

    NYTimes Reports Dishonestly To Benefit Lieberman | 6 comments (6 topical)