Report: NYT killed story to protect Obama
The Philadelphia Bulletin reports that the New York Times – “all the news that’s fit to print” – sat on an election-season about illegal ties between the Obama campaign and ACORN because it could have been a “game-changer.”
Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”
Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.
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.
This demands further investigation. If the Obama campaign did indeed send out this ‘maxed-out donor list,’ it acted in breach with campaign financing laws. Furthermore, ACORN faced severe criticism last year for illegally influencing the vote (by registering dead people for instance). American voters would not have liked it that Obama coordinated his efforts with this extreme-left organization.
If true, the NYT lost all the respect I once had for this major investigative newspaper. Killing a story out of political reasons is what political operatives not what journalists do.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Eh, I’ll reserve judgment till we know more because apparently the source of the allegation isn’t very trustworthy. If the NYT killed the story because they couldn’t get any corroboration and her veracity is in question, then they did the right thing.
However, Ed Morrissey is correct when he points out the double standard, since the NYT was more than happy to run with an extremely thinly sourced story of rumor about Vicky Iseman and John McCain.
And, if the allegations that the editorial board specifically decided not to investigate the ACORN/Obama connection further because it didn’t WANT to find corroboration, that certainly doesn’t pass ethical muster.
The source of the allegation is not trustworthy according to who? ACORN? An organization that is up to its ears in scandal? If this woman has the specifics to back up here allegations, I’d trust her word over ACORNs any day.
ACORN’s founder covered up the embezzlement of 1 million dollars and has protected his brother from prosecution. I believe her! This woman is not a millionaire fat cat made rich off ripping off the poor. Why would she risk the exposure if this is all lies. ACORN is as dirty as last weeks laundry.
Check out the O’Reilly factor tonight. The promo is up on his website.
No, Geoff, I’m not doubting her because ACORN says she’s untrustworthy- I was referring to the fact that she was fired for misuse of the organization’s credit card for personal use. People who get dismissed for embezzlement aren’t the most believable whistleblowers.
I share your negative opinion of ACORN (and Alex’s- and Alex is right about the coverup of high level embezzlement.) But that doesn’t mean that every allegation against them is true until proven otherwise.