(Edwards IS being ignored) NY Times: Good News For Edwards Not Fit To Print

[babylonsister]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/ny_times_we_onl.php

NY Times: Good News For Edwards Not Fit To Print
October 16, 2007 -- 2:57 PM EST // //

Bad news for Edwards? Fit to print. Good news for Edwards? Not so much.

In recent months The New York Times has repeatedly reported that major unions were going to take a pass on the Presidential race, repeatedly suggesting that this was a blow to John Edwards, who's courted labor most aggressively.

On July 31, for instance, the paper reported that unions were contemplating taking a pass on the primary, adding that this "would be particularly frustrating" to Edwards. On Sept. 26, the paper reported that the national Service Employees International Union would also not be making an endorsement, even though "Edwards has lobbied the union hard." On October 9, the paper did another story on SEIU's non-endorsement, adding that "Edwards had lobbied hardest for its endorsement." The paper did a fourth story on labor non-endorsements, too.

Well, yesterday ten of the SEIU's state councils -- a total of almost a million working men and women -- threw their support to Edwards. You'd think The Times -- after talking up all that bad news for Edwards -- would do a story on this, right?

Nope.

Today's Times didn't print a mention of this at all -- unlike The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, CNN and CNBC, all of whom did their own stories on it.

Incidentally, this probably isn't because the paper's reporters didn't view this as newsworthy. After all, the paper's Caucus blog carried a long item on it by labor reporter Steven Greenhouse, and judging by his item, he clearly viewed it as an important score on Edwards' part. But the paper's editors, apparently, didn't deem this good news for Edwards fit to print.

There may be a perfectly valid explanation for why the paper didn't view this as newsworthy. I just can't imagine, given its previous reporting on this, what it might be.

Update: I should have been clearer about the larger context here. It's no secret that Edwards supporters are unhappy with the Times' coverage and its failure to cover Edwards' policy speeches. This will be viewed as just more of the same.

[JDPriestly]

1. Republicans are afeared of Edwards cause he's our best shot

for the presidency and cause he will change D.C. after he is elected. He puts the fear of the real God into these hypocrites.

[Yael]

2. He is indeed.

They are screwn.

[tkmorris]

4. AND he's not a corporate toady

They hate that.

You know, I really think he is easily the most populist of all the candidates, in either party. The idea of a president with bipartisan support who isn't in anyone's pocket just has to scare the crap out of them.

[AzDar]

13. Amen.

Go Johnny, Go.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. If that is the case why did The Associated Press, Reuters, CNN and CNBC cover the story?

:shrug:

[cuke]

3. I used to read the NYT every single day

For decades, I didn't miss a day.

No longer

[1932]

11. ...I stopped when, the weekend before the California Recall, the NYT printed no less than 5

stories about Arnold, with three of them being fluff pieces. One was a totally gratuitous article trying to make it sound like Arnold, because he drives a Hummer, single-handedly revived a town in Ohio where they manufacture Hummers.

[kestrel91316]

5. The "MSM" knows Edwards has the best chance of being elected,

so they DON'T want him to be the nominee. So they refuse to report on him.

They are pretending he doesn't exist. BASTARDS.

[AmBlue]

8. Worse, they are pretending WE don't exist.

This isn't just a slap in Edwards' face. It's a slap in the face of all the voters who are supporting John Edwards and a slap in the face of the very democracy this country was founded on.

And it pisses me off.

:grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[UGADUer]

15. That's not really it

They see it as a race between a nice clean black man and a former first lady. That's a very crude way to put it but that's their vision. Edwards is old hat to them.

[HughBeaumont]

17. If it isn't completely obvious by now . . .

. . . it's the same reason why they're marginalizing/ignoring (respectively) Obama and Kucinich: Candidates that cater to the PEOPLE'S needs aren't part of their plan. Their plan is to guide the voters, through massive publicity, polls and albeit temporary praise, to their shining beacon known as Madam Windsock.

It's win/win. If she plays corporate ball (like she has been doing, via her support of Bewsh's wars and free trade) and continues to do so should she win the office, WIN. If she divides the Dem voter base and Ghouliani gets in, WIN. If she wins and fails to clean up Bewsh's mess, say hello to 2012's new King - JEB!

They're picking OUR candidate FOR us. AGAIN.

Edwards and Gore represent a threat to their plan, especially that of environmentally corrupt and worker-unfriendly Big Business.

[jillan]

6. I know how you guys feel.

It's sickening. It's all about Hillary.

[surfermaw]

7. Same with CNN and old Wolf Blitzer

If he comes on with Edwards name, look out it is goiging to be something bad.

[itsrobert]

9. NEW YORK TIMES: NY IS HOME OF THE CLINTONS

They root for the home team.

[1932]

12. NY is the home of Wall Street.

[Cha]

10. So when are the masses going to

protest the corporatemediawhores who control and manipulate our country into doing what they WANT? When are they going the way of the dino-saurs? When hell gets HOTTER?

Rec'd~

[UGADUer]

14. When JOHN EDWARDS becomes too progressive for you...

...you know there's something wrong with the media.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Another invented controversy.

:boring: