| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Monday, May 18, 2009
Despite conservative allegations to the contrary (another link), the NYT ombudsman is correct that the NYT was not looking to protect the Obama campaign when it killed a story on ACORN 'interactions' with the Obama and Clinton campaigns... for the simple reason that the people who read and take their cues from the NYT were so infatuated with Obama (and hostile to McCain and the GOP) that NOTHING the NYT could have written would have shaken their enthusiasm for Obama. Heck, the NYT could have written that Obama was going to not close Guantanamo, not get rid of indefinite detention of terrorist suspects and not release photos of alleged prisoner abuse... and Obama would still have received votes from 102% of the NYT readership.
Thus, because running the story would not have hurt Obama, the NYT must have had another reason for doing so.
|