Headline: "'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story"

So reads the headline of the Philadelphia Bulletin, citing the claims of Arica Moncreif, who is both an ACORN whistleblower and a disgruntled ex-employee.

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

...

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

...

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom [a NYT reporter] reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

I'm not sure I believe that -- but then, it is possible that the NYT's editors erred in telling the truth to their reporter, who was then so angry she repeated their words to her informant. Possible, but still unlikely; liberals never admit stuff like this. They claim "the story is still being developed," etc., etc., in perpetuity, or at least until after an election is safely behind them.

Kevin Williamson... of National Review puts me some fucking information:

The paper was launched (with me as its first editor) in 2004. Daily broadsheet, New York Sun-inspired, Catholic, conservative: all the good stuff.

Well, all rightie then. It was a bad move to stealth-impugn the paper by saying "I've never heard of it" (which I've now deleted). I was afraid it was some fly-by-night internet only thingee; a simple bit of checking would have dispelled that worry, and I shouldn't have been too lazy to do so.

I have to tell you that blogging makes one lazy in a lot of ways. As far as fact checking-- I've got 5000 fact-checkers out there, multiple layers of painstaking editorial oversight that the media claims it has.

Thanks to the commenters for letting me know earlier it was a real, and good, paper.

posted by Ace at 12:59 PM

| Access Comments