New York Times is working to undermine Obama

[SOS]

This is in reference to the print edition only.
Today's headline, page A1, above the fold:

"Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25assess.html

"PARIS — For Senator Barack Obama, who came to Europe once in the last four years, making a stop in London on his way to Russia, the response of many Europeans to his potential presidency has been gratifying — emotional, responsive, replete with the sense of hope he seeks to engender about a more flexible, less ideological America.

European governments and politicians are not so sure.

On Thursday evening in a glittering Berlin, Mr. Obama delivered a tone poem to American and European ideals and shared history.

But he was vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy that currently divide Washington from Europe and are likely to continue to do so even if he becomes president — issues ranging from Russia, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan to new refueling tankers and chlorinated chickens, the focus of an 11-year European ban on American poultry imports."

This is presented as "news analysis". It is a negative editorial, not a front page news story.

The actual news story is presented under the headline:

Obama, in Berlin, Calls for Renewal of Ties With Allies
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25obama.html

The actual news story, rather than the negative editorial, was presented on page A19.

Make no mistake. The newsapaper of record is undermining Obama on a daily basis.
This bias is not obvious in the online edition, but in print they've made their choice:

"Hey, Obama: There’s Bratwurst in Ohio, Too" page A18

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25mccain.html

[TheDonkey]

1. Why didn't Obama whip out a powerpoint presentation while he were at it??? What's he hiding???

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Demit]

2. OMFG. So the NYT thinks Obama should've been talking about chlorinated chickens?

That really is egregious. Laughable too.

[SOS]

4. It's so bad it's almost funny

Obama reaches the podium in front of 200,000 cheering Berliners:

"Good evening Berlin, I would like to begin my talk today with an extensive analysis of chlorinated chickens and tanker refueling procedures."

[Virginia Dare]

14. Yes, it's a crucial issue to Europeans and Americans..

you didn't know?...:sarcasm:

[margotb822]

18. WTF is a chlorinated chicken? Why am I worried about that?

If he wanted to bore 200,000 people to death, he could have done that, but he specifically said it was not going to be a "wonkish" speech.

I don't see how the media expects to maintain even a smidgen of credibility if they attack him no matter what he does. Shit guys, pick a side and stay on it!

[Skwmom]

3. The NY Times employs plenty of Neocons. It's a rag.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. What I can't figure out is the lack of competitiveness with foreign newspapers

for excellency in journalism. Otherwise, the Times loses credibility in its small universe.

[nolabels]

6. "Vague on Issues" yet they fail to literate what the issues are or.......

what he was supposed to be vague on. Par for course, ignoring them and their likes sounds more intelligent everyday :shrug:

[Demit]

7. No, they named some! The issues range from countries like Turkey to chickens!

[barack the house]

8. Obama needs to do a PR visit to NY. They might of take the NY Mag thing to heart.

[Renew Deal]

9. I noticed this.

I saw the cover of the times and was like :wtf:?

[Hamlette]

10. he can't win for losing

he should go to Iraq, he should travel abroad, he should look and act presidential, he does and they trash him

he shouldn't talk about politics abroad, now he's "vague on issues".

I hope he turns to the economy when he returns, then we might see a bounce in polling. That's what Americans are thinking about now.

[nomaco-10]

11. Shadenfreude is in full swing all over the MSM. n/t

[Median Democrat]

12. Like the War, The NYT Again Caves to RW Criticism

The NYT simply lacks backbone. They do an investigative piece, then they cave when the get some heat from the RW. They caved in on the story about the corruption and possible affair between McCain and a lobbyist. They caved again because of their rejection of John McCain attack ad dressed up as an editorial.

[SOS]

13. Of course the Times will "endorse" Obama in October

But this will be a business decision.
Manhattan went 85-15 in favor of Kerry in 2004.
If the Times officially endorsed McCain they would lose thousands of subscribers overnight.
This would put the final nail into their collapsing ad base.

The apparent strategy is to damage Obama every day from July to October with "news analysis" posing as news, poor placement and negative or amibiguous headlines.
Then a short, tepid "endorsement" on a Friday in October to cover their butts with their readership.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I'm sorry but I have that article in front of me and...

after reading it and looking at the highly unusual 4-column picture I see nothing wrong with it and anyone who claims the article is Obama-bashing is simply an idiot.

Yes, he was deliberately vague on the issues, and the vagueness was noticed by Europeans before the Times commented on it. The Times even quoted some Europeans saying just that.

And yes, if anyone actually gives a shit about facts, exporting chickens to the EU is actually a bigger deal than Afghanistan. We'll be out of Afghanistan in the not very distant future, but our farmers always want to sell chickens to Europe and Europe is always looking for excuses not to buy them-- this is the sort of thing that real trade talks deal with every day.

But, hey, it's easier bashing the Times because they don't print what we would like them to print than to actually read and think about the article. We're so much fucking smarter and more knowledgable than any stupid, biased reporters actually over there.

(Kool-aid comes in more than one color)

[SOS]

20. Amusing post

Let's start with your misuse of words.

bash - figurative, criticize severely
undermine - figurative, damage or weaken

Notice the difference? Undermine was chosen carefully.

You seriously think chlorinated American chicken exports are more important than the war in Afghanistan?

The Times reporter isn't stupid. Never said that. I said the article was biased. The Times labeled it as biased: News analysis
The actual news report, which was quite good, was on page A 19.

Kool-aid does indeed come in many colors. Idiots seem to favor gray.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. Undermining Obama with two puff pieces and...

a 4-column picture on the front page. That's some undermining there.

Can you inmagine what they'd do if they liked him?

[TexasObserver]

16. It's easy to get The New York Times and the Washington Times confused lately.

They're both rightwing shit that doesn't qualify for real news.

[Imagevision]

17. Expect ALL M$M to nit-pick Obama's trip overseas as presumptuous

[Cha]

19. Owner of the NYT is not "vague" on being an

a$$hole, though.

[DFW]

22. Some of the more liberal German media were disappointed in Obama's speech

They wanted more specifics and not generalities. He's a brilliant orator, I've met
him and seen him up close, and he could make a take-out Chinese menu seem exciting.
But he did not get in some specifics the Germans (including my wife, who is still
there this week) were hoping he would offer. They still want him to win, and McCain
has about as much support in Germany as a prohibitionist. But he didn't deliver what
so many of them were hoping to hear. This doesn't make him bad or wishy-washy or even
indecisive. It just means that many people gathered at the Tiergarten hoping for more
than they got. His masterful delivery had McCain and his team frothing at the mouth,
which means they were as blown away by the speech as anyone else. They complained that
Obama was acting presidential before he was even elected. Not with that speech, he wasn't.
That just proves that the McCain crowd wasn't listening very carefully. They heard the
masterful delivery and saw the immense crowd cheering, and felt they needed to strike
back. But Obama played rope-a-dope. They were striking out at something that wasn't there.
The speech was rather plain, but delivered as if he were delivering the Declaration of
Independence on his own. McCain and the right wing media fell for it like a ton of bricks.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. It's a cover. They are running scared from the Repukes who are whining about preferential treatment

[depakid]

24. Print something that tries to take a European perspective

and watch ethnocentric Americans fly off the handle.

Frankly, it's embarrassing- though it does illuminate just how much work its going to take to try to repair the American peoples' image overseas.

.