CT on NYT Caucus Blog

Is anyone going to be there to represent a public plan option? Why not?
HR 676 is a public health care option. Who will represent HR 676 at this meeting?

The only way to control medical costs is to regulate them and only governments have been able to do this fairly and equitably. Health care is not something you want to leave to the dog-eat-dog competition of the marketplace. Remember, free market capitalism gives you HMO and rationing. Only universal health care provides complete coverage for all in need.

Are Patients Ready for Health Reform?

Yes!

 Read more…

Could the stars be aligning for a Google-N.Y. Times merger?

As the New York Times Co. is negotiating with lenders over its debt, speculation has been floating around the blogosphere, pushing the premise that Google Inc. should acquire the beleaguered Gray Lady. The thesis (or, rumor, as some would put it) has been around since the beginning of the year, with SpliceToday on Thursday reintroducing the idea of the unorthodox union of the stalwart of old media with the scion of new media.

Al Gore sits in Google's Board of Directors. I hope Google makes him publisher of the NYT.

I'll admit: I'm a little bit jealous. Or at least, jealous for Lambert. He's a WASP, and therefore is "worthy" of making the NYT's political pages, right? Oh well. Bowers has become the new, eminently misquotable whipping boy for the "angry Left," and thus not to be contacted directly, lest some terrible germ infect the sacred flesh of reporters. He's calling from Inside the House!!!

I just noticed this article in the New York Times now. Emphasis mine:

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential Daily Kos site on the Internet, said it was way too early to begin judging Mr. Obama. "Some people may be nit-picky about his choices but at the end of the day, he's going to make better choices than John McCain would have made," Mr. Moulitsas said by telephone. "There will be a time to push him, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to wait to see what it means on a policy basis, not on personalities."

Some bloggers have been less patient. "Why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left?" asked Chris Bowers on his site, OpenLeft.com.

The reason I emphasized those two lines is because I was never contacted by the author of the piece, Peter Baker, about an interview for the article. So, if you are a blogger perceived as supportive of Obama, you get a phone call. However, if you are perceived as critical of Obama, you are just selectively quoted in order to fit into the existing narrative.

Come to think of it, I wasn't I contacted by The Politco for their piece that quoted me. Nor was I contacted by the New York Times for the piece where they quoted me last month. Nor by USA Today last month. Nor by UPI. Nor by Salon. Nor by Time (even though Beinart actually works with someone who is dating one of my cousins, and it wouldn't have been hard to fine me). Nor by The Washington Post. I was actually contacted by Fox News, which has quoted me a few times recently, but I declined to appear on their network. MSNBC also contacted me, and I had a great time on Hardball.

 Read more…

The Sunday New York Times Magazine will have a big feature entitled Is Obama the End of Black Politics

Filled with reporter Matt Bai's Obamessiahanism, the piece is unreadable for all intents and purposes. But it is notable for one big reason -- Bai renders black female politicians invisible in his discussion of black politics.

Of the 15 African Americans whose names get a "link" from the Times, there is only one woman -- Michelle Obama. In addition to the "linked", there are other black political figures quoted or mentioned -- none of whom are women.

And why does anyone care what she thinks?

Lambert asks what is up with the latest craptaculence from Julie Bosman's keyboard, and where have all the decent reporters gone? Good questions; there’s a story beneath the story here, and it encapsulates everything that is wrong with what is fraudulently passed off as contemporary “journalism.” Let’s dig down into the muck a bit, shall we?

Alright, maybe I should ahve been more bloggy and said fuck off. But I think "Go to Hell" is literalistly more correct. The New York Times publishes a long apologia by Noah Feldman which contains a string of lies and implicit assertions about fact which are verifiably untrue. These assertions, were a blogger or Democratic nominee for President make them would get a stern warning from teh serious people and the Village Idiots about sticking more closely to truthiness.

For example:

 Read more…

As has been rumored for some weeks (and advocated since the day after the damn thing was started) the New York Times has announced the decease of the detested paywall, formerly known as TimeSelect.

Why? Exactly the reason, she said smugly, I've been saying all along:

subscription fees cannot outweigh the potential ad revenue from increased traffic on a free site.

The fact that this decease comes to liberate the one part of the Times that really has been "liberal"--Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, occasionally Maureen Dowd

That darn liberal media! I'm not going to dignify the Times hit piece with a link; go read TPM.

It's like their takeaway from goring Gore and swiftboating Kerry is that they can keep running the same play over and over again, isn't it? And they wonder why circulation is falling.

Today's Times:

In Atlanta, Debbie Lange said she was no rock-hard Republican.

But Times stenographer Michael Powell, apparently, is. "Rock hard," at least.

Because nobody appeals to the bedwetters like Bernie Kerik's boss:

“We haven’t seen the last of all the horrible things that could happen to us,” she said, her voice becoming a whisper. “I want someone who could look the worst in the face when it happens.”

Er, yikes! And, naturally, the high school clique-level political "reporters" at the world's greatest newspaper (not!) are already starting to turn Rudy's narcissistic authoritarianism into a lovable character foible. The narcissism:

Mr. Giuliani’s brow furrowed. He began talking about the grand, bipartisan, four-president-long effort to put a man on the moon. Such an achievement “needs someone with a driving personality who can get it done.”

He smiled, almost to himself [Sigh...]. “And I’ve got the candidate who can get it done,” he said.

He took two steps, leaned toward her and pointed at his chest [Sigh...]. He mouthed [Oh my!] a single word:

“Me.”

Oh my goodness! Me. Me. Me. Me. And the authoritarianism:

You know that gesture wherein you put your forefinger sideways in your mouth, puff up your cheeks, push the finger out sharply to make a "pop" noise, then wave finger in the air? Signifies "big whoopin' do" in a rude and vulgar way. I was all ready to do that when I saw this headline...Times Names Public Editor, and since I couldn't click the mouse and raise that finger to the mouth at the same time I clicked first. Good move:

The New York Times today named its next public editor, Clark Hoyt, a former Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor who oversaw the Knight Ridder newspaper chain’s coverage that questioned the Bush administration’s case for the Iraq war.

Hmm. Not to sound like a racetrack tout trying to pick a winner in the Derby but this dude's bloodlines and recent workout times look good.

Interesting that this is the first time I've heard NYT say that "Public Editor" is a time-limited position.

How very odd. Or not. Times stenographer Christopher Drew:

A laboratory that has tested most of the nation’s electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests.

Experts on voting systems say the Ciber problems underscore longstanding worries about lax inspections in the secretive world of voting-machine testing. The action by the federal Election Assistance Commission seems certain to fan growing concerns about the reliability and security of the devices.

No shit, Sherlock. Go read the whole story, before it disappears behind the pay wall. You will look in vain for any mention of Ciber's affiliations with the Republican Party.

How odd.

Or not.

Of course, we were covering this back in 2004:

A fine example of "balanced" journalism:

New Campaign Ads Have a Theme: Don’t Be Nice
The result of the dueling accusations has been what both sides described on Tuesday as the most toxic midterm campaign environment in memory.

OK, so much for the feelings. What about the facts? Here's the buried nugget:

While Democrats have largely concentrated their efforts on the political records of Republicans, the Republicans have zeroed in more on candidates’ personal backgrounds.

So, according to Nags, the Democrats are guilty of "toxic" politics when they focus on their Republican opponent's record. Sweet Jeebus.

What kind of politics would Nags have the Democrats practice? What is "nice"?

So the New York Times finally gets around to a story wondering Where's Our Anthrax Vaccine, Huh? Don't bother with the story, it's kinda worthless. But it is accompanied with an interesting graphic which includes a bar chart of how much money has been promised, and paid, to the two companies in this dogfight.

Two companies were promised money, but only one company actually got money so far, and quite a lot of it in fact. And they have so far produced anthrax vaccine in the quantity of zero, zip, nil, nada. No prospect of any anytime soon either.