Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
politics
Did The NYT Kill A Story Linking Obama to ACORN?
WASHINGTON -- Did The New York Times wrongly spike a story that would have implicated then-candidate Barack Obama in the ACORN controversy? So testified Heather S. Heidelbaugh, a lawyer representing Republicans in an ACORN lawsuit, during an overlooked House Judiciary subcommittee hearing last week.
According to Heidelbaugh's prepared remarks, NYT beat reporter Stephanie Strom submitted to her editors in late October a story that alleged Obama offered the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, a list of its "maxed-out donors" for their get-out-the-vote fundraising operations. The primary source in the piece was Anita Moncrief, a fired ACORN employee and frequent informant to Strom. However, per Heidelbaugh's testimony, the Times refused to publish the controversial article because, as Strom allegedly told her source, "it was a game changer." Strom subsequently penned not a single additional ACORN story between the described incident and the November election, Heidelbaugh added.
Although Strom could not be reached for comment, the Times' Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications, Catherine Mathis, told The Bulletin of Philadelphia that the NYT "do[es] not discuss [its] news gathering and won't comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama."
Even so, it remains unclear whether any wrongdoing actually occurred. If the allegations are true, Obama's collusion with ACORN could constitute "gross violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," Heidelbaugh said. However, the hearing's participants did not further inquire as to how or why this was the case.
Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to indict the Times for journalistic malpractice.
Even if Obama did, in fact, conceal his real relationship with ACORN, it is quite possible that newspaper editors lacked adequate sourcing to prove it. Moncrief, who provided the NYT much of its inside information, was fired by ACORN in 2008 for misusing its corporate credit card. Her questionable motivations, combined with the last-minute nature of Strom's story, may have contributed to the Times' decision to kill it.
Yet, this is hardly the first time observers have excoriated Obama on the subject of ACORN. During the 2008 campaign, the Democratic nominee fielded an array of criticisms about it, many of which alleged he was involved in its fraudulent voter registrations and questionable fundraising efforts. Although the campaign successfully deflected each of these insinuations, inevitably emerging victorious in November, Republicans and Democrats alike have since expressed an interest in further investigating ACORN's business practices -- especially those originating during the 2008 campaign.
According to Heidelbaugh's prepared remarks, NYT beat reporter Stephanie Strom submitted to her editors in late October a story that alleged Obama offered the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, a list of its "maxed-out donors" for their get-out-the-vote fundraising operations. The primary source in the piece was Anita Moncrief, a fired ACORN employee and frequent informant to Strom. However, per Heidelbaugh's testimony, the Times refused to publish the controversial article because, as Strom allegedly told her source, "it was a game changer." Strom subsequently penned not a single additional ACORN story between the described incident and the November election, Heidelbaugh added.
Although Strom could not be reached for comment, the Times' Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications, Catherine Mathis, told The Bulletin of Philadelphia that the NYT "do[es] not discuss [its] news gathering and won't comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama."
Even so, it remains unclear whether any wrongdoing actually occurred. If the allegations are true, Obama's collusion with ACORN could constitute "gross violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," Heidelbaugh said. However, the hearing's participants did not further inquire as to how or why this was the case.
Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to indict the Times for journalistic malpractice.
Even if Obama did, in fact, conceal his real relationship with ACORN, it is quite possible that newspaper editors lacked adequate sourcing to prove it. Moncrief, who provided the NYT much of its inside information, was fired by ACORN in 2008 for misusing its corporate credit card. Her questionable motivations, combined with the last-minute nature of Strom's story, may have contributed to the Times' decision to kill it.
Yet, this is hardly the first time observers have excoriated Obama on the subject of ACORN. During the 2008 campaign, the Democratic nominee fielded an array of criticisms about it, many of which alleged he was involved in its fraudulent voter registrations and questionable fundraising efforts. Although the campaign successfully deflected each of these insinuations, inevitably emerging victorious in November, Republicans and Democrats alike have since expressed an interest in further investigating ACORN's business practices -- especially those originating during the 2008 campaign.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- Macys thanksgiving day history
- Students for Justice in Palestine: A real look inside
- Suspects Arrested in Murder of Student
- New Moon an improvement in Twilight saga
- Thanksgiving-themed movies are a hard-to-find but not impossible genre
Recent Comments »
Page 1/3
Post Your Comments Below
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments
Roy
12:01AM 12:01AM Mar 31st 2009
"Unwittingly" spiked the story????? The NYT owes the American people an apology for their part in covering up Obama's shortcomings and transgressions.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
no apology
1:36PM 1:36PM Apr 18th 2009
tHE nEW yORK tIMES SHOULD NOT APOLOGISE. ATHEY SHOULD BE PUT PUT OF BUSINESS FOR OUTRIGHT CHEATING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE out of knowledge they had an obligation to share if for no other reason than in the end Americans always try to do the right thing with the information they have. Having worked in the Intelligence Community for many years I SUGGEST THAT "ACORN" is a SUBVERSIVE RADICAL ORGANIZATION AND SHOULD BE ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. I futher believe that until we PROSECUTE some of these high ranking politician who have violated the OATH'S of OFFICE they took when accepting their positions successful changes will be very slow if at all. We must do to them what they do to the Ameruican people. Strike FEAR IN THEIR HEARTS
Rating :
Report!
FireEagle
1:57AM 1:57AM Mar 31st 2009
Well is seems that for ACORN the affiliation worked.
In the stimulus package Obama and the democrats gave ACORN 3.5 billion dollars. That is a nice chunk of change for voter fraud.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Jim
1:58PM 1:58PM Mar 31st 2009
Any wonder the media might suspect negative stories regarding the President and ACORN? You falsely claim that the President and Congress "gave" ACORN 3.5 billion dollars which has been debunked by every major news service going. So, have the major claims of vote fraud by ACORN during the campaign by self-serving Republicans going into the election.
Rating :
Report!
FireEagle
6:38PM 6:38PM Apr 1st 2009
Well most of the major newsnetworks are in bed with Obama so they would never admit that there is 3.5 billion dollars going to Acorn.
Of course most of the congress (persons) did not read the stimulus package either, so it is no wonder that the no one reported it.
Here is fact checks answer
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_stimulus_bill_include_a_52.html
Boehner and Vitter commit two logical fallacies. Their argument has the form:
The stimulus bill provides funding for redeveloping neighborhoods.
ACORN does work in redeveloping neighborhoods.
Therefore the stimulus bill provides funding for ACORN.
Rating :
Report!
Patricia
6:36AM 6:36AM Mar 31st 2009
Imagine that? The New York Times supressing a story linking the one to acorn? Hmm, kinda like the LA Times and Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
mayabelle1107
9:28AM 9:28AM Mar 31st 2009
It didn't stop them from running a made up, slanderous story about McCain and his aide. Yet they didn't want to run true stories about obama. These anti-American yellow journalists need to be run out of this country. They serve no benefit and only dwell in subversion and near treason.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
FireEagle
10:13AM 10:13AM Mar 31st 2009
Mayabelle,
You need to tell people what the yellow press was all about. (I forgot) . I had read about it in history class.
But you are very correct. The media pick McCain because they knew he would lose and when it looked like Obama was going to beat Hillary they switched from Hillary to Obama and would not print anything negative about Obama.
Rating :
Report!
Debbie
10:02AM 10:02AM Mar 31st 2009
No wonder their sales are falling, they don't want to tell the truth anymore.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
KJ
6:00AM 6:00AM Apr 14th 2009
HELL, WHEN DID THEY EVER TELL THE TRUTH???
Rating :
Report!
Angiebaby
10:09AM 10:09AM Mar 31st 2009
Did The NYT Kill A Story Linking Obama to ACORN? Does a cat have an ass?
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
John Michael
9:39AM 9:39AM Apr 2nd 2009
WHY YES CATS DO! it stinks and everything that comes out of it stinks as well.
Rating :
Report!
Angiebaby
9:49AM 9:49AM Apr 2nd 2009
Bite me, you little wienie.
Rating :
Report!
Magic 8
10:45AM 10:45AM Mar 31st 2009
How many pitiful examples like this are needed? Outside of the hardcore Dem/Obot loyalists, what even semi-serious person would bother reading an NYT product?
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Patti Chiarelli
12:13PM 12:13PM Mar 31st 2009
Many of us were so frustrated that the mainstream media would not print anything linking Obama and ACORN during the campaign. Now, ACORN got, not 3 but, $5 billion from Obama's "stimulus." But the VOTER FRAUD machine is in place, ACORN is going to work the Census, and rigged elections are ensured from here on out. $5 billion is a lot of money to buy alot of people. Forget the European socialist model, Obama is going for the Stalin/Mao model of totalitarian rule.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
ed
12:05PM 12:05PM Mar 31st 2009
NYT-basically covered up fraud to help elect an incompetent, inexperienced man to be president. It should go out of business, sooner the better.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
David Lapinski
12:38PM 12:38PM Mar 31st 2009
Did any of you read the story and THINK about it? WHY would Obama gice Acorn a list of his maxed ot donors??? All of them would have been registered and guaranteed to vote for him anyways!The story was killed because it was stupid.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
jaycee
9:08PM 9:08PM Mar 31st 2009
Where do you live David? The maxed-out donors CAN contribute to ACORN thus enabling ACORN to hire more people and draw in more supporters, etc., etc., etc. that all political organizations do. What do you think they are going to do with the money they get over the next four years? DUH!
Rating :
Report!
KJ
2:02PM 2:02PM Mar 31st 2009
HAHAHQA..HE IS THE LAWYER OF RECORD THAT SUED BANKS FOR RACISM, MAKING THEM TAKE ON LOANS WITH UNQUALIFIED BUYERS, EVEN ILLEGAL ALIENS. TH EBANKS COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE BAD SUBPRIME LOANS AND HES A FINANCIAL TERRORIST!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Iseethru it
3:05PM 3:05PM Mar 31st 2009
I finally get it that Americans are very 'Dumb'they let a C avg student that brother help fix the votes in FL. his Dad's influences with the inner circle no one challenged his becoming President but a non experience blackman is just running the country in the ground and the fix with Acorn what will white people do or say next your like the asshole who cut you off in traffic and pretend your not there or oh they didn't see you we are screwed because we stop revolting against the injustice in ours society because everyone thought they were getting ahead they were conned now it's time to pannic, please getting a degree and not having common sense is what will make the difference to survive these times.. please
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments