Search This Blog

Thursday, September 10, 2009

New York Times admits being 'a beat behind' on Van Jones story. Now there's a surprise

New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson has admitted that the paper was just a tad slow in covering the scandal of Van Jones, the Left-wing extremist and 9/11 “truther” who had to resign as Barack Obama’s “Green Czar” after his revolting past was exposed.

Here’s Abramson’s risible explanation for the fact that her colleagues didn’t get round to covering the scandal until after Jones resigned:

The Times was, in fact, a beat behind on this story. Why? One reason was that our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period. This is not an excuse. Another is that despite being a so-called “czar,” Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official. Nevertheless, we should have been paying closer attention.

Oh, what bollocks. Of course the New York Times was paying close attention to the story. It just chose not to write about it, because Jones was a black appointee of President Obama.

If, on the other hand, it had stumbled across a rumour that a junior member of the Bush administration had ignored a “Don’t Walk” sign when crossing the road, it would immediately have put a team of crack reporters and a zillion fact-checkers on the story. Isn’t that right, Jill?

No comments: