If the story made any impact, the reaction would have been ferocious. Can't you just imagine all the bemoaning by right-wing pundits about how far the Gray Lady has fallen -- to peddling loony left-wing conspiracies! This is a perfect example of why Americans don't trust the establishment media any more. In fact, to just even plant the seed of doubt that the president of this great country might resort to such a dirty (and pathetic) trick is undermining our democratic institutions that are so revered around the world.
I think the NYT would be quite sensitive to this line of attack because deep down they feel this way themselves. Consider how a few days after Salon ran the story they wouldn't, they ran a snarky "editorial" where they had a photographer go around and take pictures of suit bulges found on the streets -- though, despite his efforts, none of them happened to look much like our president's bulge.
-- adam
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:29:28 -0500 (EST), Michael Pollak
<mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Doug Henwood cited a long FAIR article to the effect
> that
>
> > <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012>
> >
> > The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the
> > election-because it could have changed the election
>
> Assuming this story is true -- and it certainly looks true, -- it kind of
> sums up the difference between Democratic-leaning media and
> Republican-leaning media, and explains why the former are getting their ass
> kicked. Beyond dirty tricks, beyond lying, beyond the echo chamber, they
> just haven't got any courage at all.
>
> But I'm honestly puzzled as to why. Reading between the lines, the NYT
> seems to have been scared not about changing the election -- which seems to
> be the very definition of a political scoop, the grail every reporter wants
> -- but that they will be crushed if they are wrong. *And that they will
> suffer even if they are right.* And that the closer they get to the
> election, the more they will suffer. And they just can't stand it.
>
> The NYT bigwigs cite as a cautionary example the "considerable heat" they
> had took from conservatives and from the Bush campaign for running the
> Al-Qaqaa story" (the unguarded missing high explosives story) the week
> before the election.
>
> But I'm stumped: that story was 100% true. It didn't have the slightest
> weakness. So what sort "heat" could possibly have been generated over such
> a story that would matter?
>
> It makes it seem like the difference between the two sides is purely and
> simply a matter of intimidation. As if the reason the conservative press
> has tons of bombshell stories and liberal press doesn't simply because the
> liberal side can be crumpled by attack -- even if they haven't done anything
> wrong -- and the conservative side can't.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>