Recent weeks have seen ombudsmen at both the New York Times and the Washington Post defend their respective newspapers from charges of journalistic bias and a deep-seated, enduring slant to the political left. Defined as “trusted [intermediaries] between…an organization and some…external constituency,” it is the job of New York Times ombudsman Arthur Brisbane and the Post’s Patrick Pexton to represent “the broad scope of constituent interests” by seeking to present readers with facts and straightforward, impartial reporting.
Of course, anyone with a sense of humor—or any sense at all—will get a real kick out of claims of straightforward and impartial reporting by the Times or the Post. But that is exactly what these embattled colleagues have done in their attempts to defend recent articles responsible for more than the usual show of outrage from the reading public.
On May 10th, the Post printed a story of Mitt Romney’s 1965 involvement in forcibly cutting the hair of fellow Cranbrook student John Lauber. According to the very lengthy article, Romney and a number of friends threw Lauber to the ground and submitted him to a cruel and “vicious hack job.” Of course, Lauber also turned out to be gay. A remarkable coincidence of timing considering Obama’s sudden act of “coming out” in support of gay marriage. As the Post tells it though, these things “… just happened to coincide…”
However, as PJ Media points out, “…the story directly quoted a dead man; it claimed things about him that, being dead, he is in no position to affirm or refute; it mischaracterized the opinion of one of its core witnesses; and the family of the dead man (Lauber) says the story is factually inaccurate.”
The Post’s Pexton responds to such criticism from conservative web sites and large numbers of readers with: “The Mitt Romney bullying story holds up to scrutiny,” even as he defends as quite innocent timing clearly designed to assist the President.
The New York Times’ unintentional foray into slapstick involves the newspaper’s April 21st laugher “A Hard Look at the President.” Not only has Pinch’s family publication never come close to doing what the title suggests; Ombudsman Arthur Brisbane actually hopes to reassure readers skeptical of the Time’s intentions by stating “The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers—these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey responds to this extraordinary statement beautifully, with “One can imagine Lucy telling Charlie Brown much the same thing right before pulling the football away for the 50th year in a row.”
It is hardly a secret that the New York Times and Washington Post literally act as willing and dutiful publicity arms of the Democrat Party and the Obama Regime. What is interesting is the sudden concern exhibited by these publications about the way in which they are viewed by their readers. Expressed public outrage has done little to stir corporate ombudsmen from decades of smug slumber in the past. So why now? Is it possible that these important media allies of the President realize that their guy is in desperate trouble and must therefore respond to and deny any potentially harmful accusations of bias and intrigue?
It might be very instructive to see if it becomes commonplace for the media to defend its journalistic integrity over the coming months.
Photo credit: niallkennedy (Creative Commons)
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Pexton, Brisbane, and Carney…. Birds of a feather whose job it is to lie, demagogue, misdirect, and cover up all of the lies, demagoguery, misdirection, and cover ups of the Obamaites, Demorats, and RINOs. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe them.
It might be very instructive to see if it becomes commonplace for the media to defend its journalistic integrity over the coming months.<<< Instructive for whom? If these pied pipers of presidents have yet to figure out that public is up to the follicles on a bald head with disgust because they're being offered fairy tales by spinmeisters without journalistic integrity.
Instructive for US, not to politicians. Four years ago the media lied and cover-up for Obama with utter impunity. It didn’t cross a single mind at the NY Times to defend the articles of its “journalists.” But now, in a matter of a week or 2, two of the most dependably leftist media supporters of The One have decided it necessary to explain themselves to their readers. To defend the honesty of their offerings. If this starts any sort of trend, it will mean the liberal media has become desperate.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” -Jeremiah 17:9-10
Are they really this blind that they think a few well chosen words will convince us that they are not who we know they are? The only time I ever even glance at the Times or Post (or TIME or Newsweek or NPR or PBS or CNN or NBC or CBS or ABC, etc., etc.) is when I want to know what the enemy is thinking and up to.
What do you expect from liberal media? They are mouth pieces of Obama & democrat party. They are really good at LIES, DISTORTIONS & PROPAGANDA BIAS.
One of the great disappointments Americans have experienced with the liberal media is how it has decayed from biased journalism to no journalism at all; in fact MSM and the Times and Washington Post have literally been staffed by WH campaign affiliates who print Carney’s dribble verbatim. It’s nothing new for networks and papers to align with a party, but this is the first time “news sources” have forsaken their integrity to this degree.
Investigative reporting on political issues has ceased to exist, and have you noticed how practically every news worthy issue has been spun through that political lens?
It is the nature of truth to “out”, and we have seen that happen with alternative media resources which have exploded as a result.
It is significant of the Times and Post’s contempt for our intelligence that they would imagine we’d believe them now after being lied to all these years.
They sold their soul for this liberal administration, so now that it is floundering they are desperately trying to salvage some remnant of their original call….and it’s too late.