When Will NYT Be Assigning a Reporter to "Examine" Liberal "Forces"?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXLVII

The folks at the nation's "newspaper of record" are going to try to figure out why the White House isn't taking it's game plan from their editorial pages.

Sridhar Pappu reports at the New York Observer, dated Feb. 2:

The conservative movement, which at various points has felt slighted, ignored, abused, dismissed and otherwise thoroughly adrift in coverage by New York’s "media elites," has finally found a place in The New York Times. Sort of.

For the next year, David Kirkpatrick—formerly the man charged with covering the book publishing industry—will cover conservatives. Not the Republican Party or the Bush administration. No, it’s real conservatives.

In an announcement earlier this month Times national editor Jim Roberts said that Mr. Kirkpatrick "will examine conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media—a job that will take him across the country and make him a frequent presence in Washington.

"His coverage will cut across the political campaigns this season," Mr. Roberts continued, "but we expect that much of what he does will transcend the race itself and delve into the issues and personalities that drive—and sometimes divide—conservatives."

"I winced a little when I read that job announcement," said Times executive editor Bill Keller, "because it was a little like ‘The New York Times discovers this strange, alien species called conservatives,’ and that’s not what this is about." ....

I think "what this is about" is playing up as much as possible — if not more — the differences of opinion among various conservative camps, to make it look like the general conservative movement in the country is weaker than it actually is. They will, concomitantly, downplay or ignore the differences between various liberal factions. (Thus ignoring, at their peril, Core's Law of Old Media.)

If you read the article, you will find that, as far as the Times is concerned, this is about figuring out what conservative forces move the White House:

.... "Everyone knows this is not the most accessible administration in the history of the Beltway," Mr. Keller continued. "And it seems to me their reasoning and their strategies are often clouded in secrecy and spin. And in an election year, that’s likely to be more true than ever." ....

One is tempted to whisper they're looking for conspiracy theories to insinuate, but that would be too... conspiratorial. Anyway, I don't remember that NYT had anybody in the 1990s assigned to discover what liberal forces moved the Clinton White House — despite an assertion like this:

.... When asked why The Times hadn’t dispatched a correspondent to cover the far left, Mr. Keller said: "If the country was governed by a liberal executive branch and a liberal Congress, and the best access to their thinking would be assigning a reporter to cover liberal thinkers and lobbyists, I’d be happy to do that....

Of course, Keller has not been editor for very long. But the very idea that NYT would ever assign a reporter to "examine" liberal "forces" is enough to make one laugh out loud. Do they not see that the very idea they need somebody to cover "conservative" "forces" is an admission that they know nothing about them — that is, that they are completely liberal?

(Thanks, Ryan.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 01/30/04 06:47:53 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media.