Hardly a choice for the NYT

NYT faced a tough choice on Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Twitchy has this entertaining back and forth between NYT editor and a professor. (I say entertaining for lack of adjectives)

The guy, Marc Cooper, calls out the Times for not showing the cartoon culprits from Charlie Hebdo that caused 11 people to be executed. Fumbling around, the editor finally mentions being “open minded”, calls him an A-hole and storms off. The irony of lecturing him on open mindedness when being so close-minded about showing cartoons.

Then there was a rationale piece in NYT about its decision. As usual the explanation sounded as bad as their decision. The title was appropriately called:

A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

Mr. Baquet [editor] told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.

He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

“I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”

Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers.

See Public Editor’s Journal

Okay, so the NYT was actually on the fence about publishing but then decided no it wouldn’t. So did that count for a ‘we almost did publish it, but decided not to? We were very close, and seriously considered it.’ Two points to NYT, for almost publishing it. It is the thought that counts, right? So he did it to protect….

But Twitchy captured the back and forth PC theatrics of the editor trying to rationalize it. Now maybe the NYT should have first consulted with their gal Hillary Clinton, who wrote a book on the topic called “Hard Choices”? Then again, maybe not. Scratch that…lol

Ref: Facebook page Marc Cooper

Trouble in Ferguson’s Brown-ville – NYT style

Never, well almost never, will you see the Left get on the NYT for something. It’s almost taboo. But you have a freak instance where they criticize one of the left’s darling, heroes-in-the- making. Such is this case.

The New York Times did a mild article about Brown, compassionate yet confronting. What did they say that was so bad? Well, you can read the whole thing here. I’ll give a few select quotes. It is worth reading.

However, the real story now is in Leftville, where they have taken on and stopped just short of crucifying John Eligon, the author. So now there are scores of pieces written in opposition to what he wrote. What’s the Leftinistas’ old expression that they just want an honest debate? Nonsense. They claim to appreciate open discussion? No, they don’t.

The terrible story now of Brown’s death seems to be the postmortem one. Enter the wrath of the Left. Remember the name because, as Obama says, they have long memories. Whether John Eligon is aware or not, he walked through a door to an alternate universe.

Sometimes with the left you have to follow the evolution of the argument. That is exactly what we have here, all because NYT took a peek into what the Brown “tragedy” was about, the man at the center, and came up with a story that did not fit the Left’s narrative. Two things you have to remember about the left: 1) politics rules; 2) the narrative is everything – defer to #1. The author stumbled upon fractures in the second. NYT’s chief offense was being honest, for once.

It started with this interesting bit which set the stage.

FERGUSON, Mo. — It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.

“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them. (NYT)

Well, I wondered if it was some sort of a premonition? I do take it seriously. But whatever, this was not what angered the Left. No, it was that he said Brown was “no angel”. The famous quote all the left is concentrating on — again, you do know the pack mentality.

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.

Now that did it. It gave the Left something they must attack, which forces the NYT to defend its article (or sell out Eligon) But this article created a whole subtext of dialogue – a firestorm. To a person, even in MSM media, they are attacking the article and author as insensitive and whacky, calling it a hit piece on Brown. Huffington Post declared: “NYT incites backlash after saying Michael Brown was no Angel.” See that? Blame NYT, at the same time the Left uses it to stir up defense of Brown, as a victim of the press. Then the NYT will also be blamed for the predictable reaction it will cause. Get it?

You didn’t think it was a political case? Wrong. It is now, that’s no secret on the Left. It has become a voter registration drive, straight up. But it is not one of those left vs right things. Yea, sure. Every time the left gets on board it is automatically a political issue. What don’t they politicize?

Here are a few objections to the article, and/or John Eligon. You know how the left treats anyone going against their narrative.

Daily Kos “I wonder how many obituaries for dead teenagers get the explicit “he was no angel” treatment from the sodding New York Times.”

Huffington Post, headline: “WATCH: New York Times Incites Backlash After Saying Michael Brown Was ‘No Angel'”

Salon called it an “outrageously skewed” article.

However, the generally respectful article has unwittingly demonstrated the media’s unconscious bias.

In an article that purports to be about the spiritual curiosity of a doomed teen, why is it necessary to hedge the writer’s argument with harmless details of his allegedly fraught youth? Because certain media outlets have aggressively spread certain details of Brown’s life, it seems that every news outlet needs to include details of Brown’s drug use and petty theft (which are normal teenage offenses) in order to remain “objective.”

Why talk about his actual life? Well, you see where the Salon piece is headed. Dare you mention anything untoward about “Big Mike” then you are biased with an agenda because this line of reasoning(facts) is agenda driven. They claim NYT leads the reader to conclude maybe his fate was sealed. Leftists do not like that. Rather they assert he was a good kid from a good family ready to head off to college. So its alright if they intentionally color the picture of “Big Mike”, damn anyone reporting details about Mike. Wait till they all go after this cop’s life, in lockstep. That will be “fair game”.

Remember in the OJ case when they broadcasted “innocent until proven guilty” mantra? Remember the lectures on reserving judgement? Some call for the cop’s execution. They should have dragged him behind the police station and shot him. Now listen to their hollow chants about justice.

Back to this article. Couldn’t they just as easily say ‘those details about “Big Mike”only serve to humanize the man?’ No. This is just planting a flag on Michael Brown’s hill to the next soul even considering any revelations about Brown or his past. So that is it folks, if they went to war with the NYT over this, you can be sure anyone else is cannon fodder.

RightRing | Bullright