NY Times admits it was 'a beat behind' Van Jones story

What to do if you're the "newspaper of record" and fail to record the facts of a big story - even after it's over?

Lie, lie, lie - then lie some more reports Kyle Smith of the New York Post:

"Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period."

What's next? "My dog ate the copy?"

Jill Abramson, the managing editor, admitted only to being "a beat behind" the story but added that the paper had caught up - after the saga was over. The EMS equivalent of this statement would be, "Sorry I didn't take your 911 call for four days. At least I was in time for the funeral."

Although Abramson's excuse was not an excuse, she proceeded to offer another one: "Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official."

Oh. And here I was, thinking that he was "one of Mr. Obama's top advisers," as I was told by, well, The Times, on its Caucus blog on Sept. 5. Confusing, confusing.

Only in Timesland can you be in charge of doling out $80 billion in contracts ("A Small White House Program" - The Times' John M. Broder, on Sept. 6) and be less important than the Naked Cowboy.

The Times was aware of the story, knew it was bigger than most of the stuff it puts in the paper every day, and had plenty of resources to cover it.

But The Times purposely ignored it because it was hoping that the story would go away, because it likes people like Comrade Jones and was hoping he wouldn't be forced out. The Times doesn't like people like Glenn Beck and didn't want him to be able to claim Jones's scalp. The Times' prejudice blinded it to the fact that Jones' fall became obvious on Friday, when a White House spokesman refused to defend him.

Smith adds, "The Times has still not told its readers that Jones is or was a communist, calling this notion merely a charge made only by Republicans - we all know how nutty they are! - not as a fact." In the world of the New York Times, when someone actually admits to being a communist, that doesn't count and blame must be pinned on the opposition for daring to take the guy at his word.

Don't they see how ridiculous they look? Why not tell the truth? Do they think their reputation as an independent paper can be retrieved?


Hat Tip: Ed Lasky


If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com