Bumped: New York Times Emerges Firmly Under State Control
There used to be an old yarn in Washington that went like this:
Four journalists are sitting in the waiting room of an important government official’s office. The receptionist rings her boss to announce, “Sir, there are three reporters and a gentleman from The New York Times here to see you.”
The story is a relic of an earlier age, when the Times loomed like Olympus over elite journalism. But the mind-set is enjoying a revival in the Age of Obama.
Where George W. Bush’s team made a show of not caring about the Times, aides in this White House treat the paper with a deference that James Reston himself would have appreciated.
Young aides boast about how social networking helped President Barack Obama first win the presidency and now promotes his message outside the filter of mainstream journalism. The president grants interviews to Hispanic journalists on Univision and calls on reporters from newcomers like Huffington Post (and POLITICO) at news conferences.
But for all its new media airs, the new White House team remains in the thrall of perhaps the most emblematic old media institution of all.
Senior Obama officials during the transition posed for Times Sunday Magazine portraits and then opened the doors again with top-level access for another major magazine piece this month on health care. Midlevel officials cooperate for Times profiles detailing their key behind-the-scenes roles.
Even routine news stories buried deep inside the A-section of the Times often quote high-level sources speaking both on and off the record.
One part of Obama’s Times fixation is strategy. For all the proliferation of news outlets, Obama aides believe the paper still has an outsize ability to shape perceptions among political elites and other journalists.
But part of the relationship is more complicated, according to some close observers, flowing from a cultural affinity that makes Obamaites crave the validation that comes from being written about by the Times.
“The cliché of the Upper West Side liberal getting the NYT and bagels on Sundays is still very much alive,” said Democratic strategist Phil Singer. “But make no mistake: The NYT is still the gold standard for any elected official — Republican or Democrat.”
Still, the instinct to see the world revolving around 620 Eighth Ave. in Manhattan is an emphatically Democratic phenomenon.
“A Democratic White House cares much more what The New York Times says,” said Vanity Fair’s Todd S. Purdum, who previously covered the White House for the Times. For many staffers in a Democratic White House, he continued, “The New York Times has been the true north of mainstream journalism.”
Several Times reporters and editors, in interviews with POLITICO, described a significant departure from the Bush years, with the Obama team both aggressively reaching out to them and paying closer attention to their copy.
Matt Bai, who this month wrote an 8,200-word magazine cover story on the White House’s health care strategy, relied heavily on insider access that would have been unthinkable during the previous eight years.
 |
|
Obama is an authoritarian socialist. The New York Times is the equivalent of Pravda in the old Soviet Union.
I dont think that the NYT is under the control of the
state, as much as they are running true to their
dedication to Socialism. In 1959 and early 60s, they
fawned over Fidel Casto. They issisted that he was not
a Communist, but was an ‘Agrarian Reformer’. They consistantly carried Castros message.
Presently, their goals and those of Obama just happen
to coincide.
He owns their hearts and minds.
They were indoctrinated in the schools and now they are footsoldier propagandist’s in his mold.
We are evil to them.
the nyt is only a phenomenon in their area. Outside NY who cares.
so true, what a worthless rag of a paper. not worth the resources printed on.
Maybe the ACLU should sue the nyt on behalf of Algore and the EPA for wasting trees.
What the so-called MSM really HAS become is the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy. Making sure the Statist theology is advanced daily and candidates that do not follow the theology are properly demonized and protesters of the Statist theology, like the Tea Parties, are ridiculed and/or villified.
Take to the streets in number to protest the ongoing Progressive coup and they will support tanks in the streets.
At least the Financial Wreck that the Gay Grey Whore/ NYTImes has become will mean that the taxpayer will not have to fork over too many $$’s for the BHO to fully control it.
The NYT under state control? Shocka.
The opposite is true… the MSM controls the State through its control and wordsmithing of the message delivered to the populace.
Their loss of readership is the most encouraging sign today.
Google Cloward Piven orchestrated crises. A key component for this to work is a compliant media.
… Or you could google ‘the medium is the message’ and begin your journey of understanding how ‘Liberals’ represent ~20% of the population yet managed to get their Idiot King Barry Soetero elected (as easily as introducing a new and improved hemmoroid medication) despite being the most liberal member of the US Senate.
Madison Avenue is brimming with pride.
Don’t despair, one of the greatest signs of hope for the future is the fact that 48% of the voters were not fooled by the 24/7/365 for eight years “Republicans bad” message vomited by the Gramscian/Pravda press. That means that at LEAST 48% of the U.S. population can resist the propaganda machine and think for themselves. This bodes well for the future, since even people I know who do not follow politics (moderates) realize that the MSM is lying to them.
Falcon don’t forget about the very large number of people who just couldn’t morally vote for McCain and had to sit the election out knowing the fix was already in.
We still have a very silent majority!
No despair here falconfixer. Just wanted to comment on and explore the inaccuracy of ’state controlled media’. No way Barry gets elected without the media controlling not just the debate but the language of the debate such as the re-definition of the term ‘racist’.
Regardless, there is no excuse for not voting in a two party system as ArchInfidel suggests. Politics is a contact sport and I don’t respect players that won’t play defense.
Whatever, Archinfidel. “COULDN’T MORALLY VOTE FOR MCCAIN”?
How could one vote for Obama “MORALLY”? As for morals, McCain vs Barry Soteros, there is no question who to vote for if your morals are the question. Barry stands for a lot of “gray” area in between what is “Black” (wrong) and what is “White” (right). The military and my U.S. Constitution taught me that there is, in fact, a clear difference between what is right and what is wrong!!! Gray and Black are wrong and white is right!! Get used to it or you will be among the rest who suffer the consequences of liberalism and ignorance!!!!