It just seems to me that there's nasty power-worship over at the NY Times. The Clintons are powerful and have been for 15 years, and its a natural assumption to treat that fact as something in inherent. The nascent political careers of Obama and Edwards might be promising, but the Times is still scared of what could happen if they don't kowtow to Hillary and she ends up in power, "as expected".

?

I don't get the aggression of your post. I've mentioned the media power-worship here plenty of times...

Yes, you have, and articulately so. But, you're saying something that could be construed as criticism of Hillary Clinton, and that's just not acceptable to some (OMG!).

In any event, I wish the Times were cognizant enough about the state of politics to be "scared" in this situation. I think it's more that big media is completely myopic when it comes to candidates other than the huge names. I think the Times political writers simply assume Hillary is going to be the candidate, and find it impossible to entertain any other scenario.

As for the disdain towards Edwards? I have no clue.

what's more, become uncomfortable when their assumptions are challenged (which could explain hostile reactions).

Hah! Think of the reaction to Stephen Colbert and the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner. Talk about assumptions being challenged, and talk about hostility...

I saw this photo in the NYT and thought the same thing.

I agree the NYT is acting ridiculously toward Edwards (as is WaPo), although I'm not really sure how much that matters in the end. I suppose it might hurt big city fundraising and buzz in the short-term, but the whole point of the article is Edwards' focus on winning Iowa via face-to-face appearances and old-fashioned retail campaigning, a strategy that so far has gone well.

btw, where have you seen someone here who doesn't want to talk about what Edwards wants to talk about? I think that's definitely a diminishingly small minority on TPM.

Maybe it's part of NYT's "fairness doctrine"? Right.

At least it wasn't a backdrop saying "Giuliani".

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Oh don't be silly. The picture is extremely appropriate for this article. READ the article. The theme of the article is that Edwards is the front-runner in Iowa and he is counting on a win there, but that Clinton (and Obama) are looming in the rear-view window.

What better picture to illustrate this point? btw, notice that Edwards looks great in this picture.

But you all see proof that the NYT favors Clinton! I don't see it. In fact their principal Clinton reporter Healy appears to be quite anti-Clinton (www.dailyhowler.com/dh061507.html), at least as much as Leslie Wayne is anti-Edwards.

I don't really see this photo doing Edwards any harm. Everybody already knows Hillary is also campaigning. Doesn't hurt to point out the strangeness of the choice, I suppose, but whining about trivial "slights" may ultimately work against the candidate.

The article itself is pretty positive, seems to me.

BTW, this headline/photo/caption issue is common throughout the MSM. AP is especially notorious for introducing a basically fair story with a blatantly false, misleading, and biased headline or photo caption. Unfortunately that's all a lot of people read, and it's a hard habit for the public to fight.

I've seen way worse than this. Check out the photo of Kucinich that CNN chose to run:

CNN coverage of Kucinich

I e-mailed this link along with the following note to TPM back in April:

Since you guys are journalists and I'm not, I thought I'd ask what you think of this. Does running a photo like this with what is supposed to be an objective news story cross any sort of journalistic boundary? The photo makes him look like a goof. I take it as an editorial comment. Is it really appropriate in a news story? Or is it wrong to suggest that a news organization has an obligation to run flattering photos of everyone? Just curious what you think.

Heard nothing but crickets at the time.

LOL!

deleted

I imagine that the Edwards campaign rather likes the photo. After all, it captures the "stare wistfully towards the horizon" pose that Edwards strikes whenever in range of the camera.

"As for the disdain towards Edwards? I have no clue."

What in the world are you talking about? Point out a quote please.

And once again: "aggression"?

Point it out please.

Okay. You wrote this:

Welcome to earth. I can see you have not been on our planet very long. Hope you enjoy your stay...

You're going out of your way to be unpleasant instead of engaging someone in an intelligent discussion.

OMG!

It's like you are arguing the earth is flat!

"aggression"?

And:

This might be news to ya:

Here's news to you, hadenough. mopper8 has consistently been posting about the media, bias, etc. So don't start blathering about how the liberal media hates Democrats. I think the readers here are pretty aware of that.

It's clear you are a huge fan of Hillary. Fine. Just stop badgering people who have the nerve to have a different opinion from yours, ok?

Edited for blockquote.

lets not forget edwards helped that job get done.

any excuse one can use to bash hillary.

the actual accusation "hillary chose this photo and ny times ceded to her demands," has never been made of course.

Well, nobody thinks that happened.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I don't think most people are asking for "my party right or wrong."  But the insistance of the purists on "my way or no way" is the main reason George W. Bush is in office today.

Harold Ford would have voted for Harry Reid as majority leader. Bob Corker did not.

If Webb or McCaskill had lost their razor-thin races, the Senate would be led by Mitch McConnell. We would not be debating leaving Iraq. We would not be setting up GOP Senators Susan Collins and John Sununu and 3-4 others to get picked off by Dem challengers in 2008. There is a difference, and you shouldn't pretend there is not.

Our system does not allow for complete ideological purity. Why do you think the GOP put on such a push to support Lincoln Chafee in RI, both in the GOP primary and in the general election? Certainly not b/c he agreed with them on every issue. That's how the system works.

It's far different to elect conservative Dems in the states of the Old South, where we basically have no Democratic Senators, than in, say, Connecticut.

Sorry, but I see this photo for what it is: A flattering pic of John Edwards (as opposed to one where he's picking his nose)in the shadow (blurred name) of the front-runner, Hillary Clinton. This is, to me, an example of photojournalism at its best, not worst. It speaks to a reality no one can deny -- that Hillary is the front-runner, and EVERYONE ELSE is running in her shadow.

To capture that in a picture is art, not politics. And it's good photo-journalism, not a hit-piece on Edwards.

Sometimes, a picture is exactly what it represents, and this is one example.

"Uh, not sure what you are referring to, hadenough."

You were commenting on a comment directed at me. I assumed you as directing your comment at me. That's what I get for assuming. My mistake.

The first step to populist legislation is populist rhetoric that builds a coalition to help pass said legislation once a Democrat is elected. If you don't talk about it and build a consensus for action during the campaign, you can forget seeing anything progressive passing when whoever is elected takes office.

The real value of Edwards' emphasis on poverty (regardless of motivation in my opinion) is that it has moved the entire debate to the left where it oughtta be. None of them would be talking about these issues if Edwards hadn't done an excellent job of putting poverty on the agenda again. We have too many Democrats trying to run as Republican lite for my taste this time as in the past. I have great confidence that Democrats who run as real Democrats (representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party) are not only able to win, but are more likely to win.

Times have changed and people want to see a return to progressive government after the last generation of Democrats apologizing for wanting to improve the health, education and environment of all Americans. But nobody can vote for a real Democrat if nobody runs as one. Edwards, at least, is running as a real Democrat and not a centrist. How he positioned himself in the past really is beside the point. We aren't electing people in the past, we are electing them this time. I think each of the major candidates has developed positions over time that are not exactly the positions they would have taken earlier in their political careers for whatever reason and that's okay.

Whoever ends up being the nominee and then President, if anything happens regarding the poor and if anything happens in terms of progress on the things that liberals/progressives value most, it will be because of John Edwards and no one else regardless of motive. I also think Edwards is the most likely to actually get something done regarding the liberal programs and policies Democrats favor precisely because that is what he is running on. An added benefit is that if we have a nominee who is running on these issues, we are likely to have many other Democrats on the federal level running on the same issues. That can't hurt when it comes to passing legislation about them.

Folks, the NYT doesn't give a rats ass what anybody thinks when they pull these juvenile stunts against Edwards (or whoever the candidate they want to torpedo happens to be at another time). They are bloated, corrupt and have no shame at all engaging in idiotic and unprofessional smears such as they have chosen to conduct on Edwards.

The only way to fight em is to fight em. By fighting them and making their outrageous and offensive idiocy an issue the public is aware of is the only hope of modifying their desire to smear him. It is the only way. Until and unless their idiocy becomes the issue they will continue to blithely ignore any and all valid criticism and provide thin cover for every attack. That cover will have all the credibility of a Judith Miller exclusive on WMD but it won't matter because they only care about what they think because they are what is important to themselves, not the public, not their responsibility as journalists or anything else. Fuck em!

Perhaps one possibility for really making the point clear is if Democrats, regular folks, who attend media covered events start heckling Times reporters, holding up signs pointing out their unethical, unprofessional attacks. Right now it is their attacks on Edwards, but fear not, if they are given a green light on him they will also go after our other candidates. ALL Democrats should howl to high heaven anytime ANY Democratic candidate is slimed by the NYT or any other media outlet.

When they start getting embarassed and when they start becoming the issue instead of Edwards' hair, you'll see them back off. Until then, forget it. They don't give damn what you or I or ten million of us think. The NYT is in a very real sense almost a monopoly since it is universally recognized as the paper of record for the nation and clearly sets the news agenda for America each day as much or more than any other media organization. As such perhaps they should change their motto to the one we used to joke was ATT's motto prior to the breakup of ol Ma Bell: "We don't care. We don't have to."

Excellent. This photo of Kucinich in a CNN story. Fair or unfair?

CNN story on Kucinich with photo

it is true.

i have seen criticism of unfair coverage of all democrats here at election central.

so one can't sit back say it's all biassed.

likewise, the ny times could have pointed out back to election central, they have published some nice things about edwards too.

and criticism of hillary and obama too.

and yet. there's actually something to the ny times choosing that picture. they have given edwards a hard time.

and there might be something to election central seemingly being incapable of reporting anything good about hillary without hinting at the political expedience of her actions.

the devil is, as he has always been, in the details.

in any publication, blog or otherwise there will always be just enough content for the journalist/blogger to respond to their critics, "see, we have criticized everyone." or "see. we have reported on unfair criticism of everyone."

"mopper8 has consistently been posting about the media"

If mopper8 has consistently been posting things along the line of the nyts sucking up to the Clintons for 15 years thanks for warning me. I'll ignore the poster from now on.

"It's clear you are a huge fan of Hillary."

It's clear you don't know what you are talking about. Somebody posted that the nyts has been sucking up to the Clintons for 15 years. Crazy.

"Just stop badgering people"

Somebody here said the nyts has been sucking up to the Clintons for 15 years. What do you make of that?

The times sucking up to the Clintons:

NY Times article on Clinton's faith lacks sources for those who question her "sincerity"
A July 7 New York Times article by reporter Michael Luo exploring how Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) Methodist faith "intertwines" with her "political life" asserted that Clinton "has been alluding to her spiritual life with increasing regularity in recent years," and that those references "have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity ... and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics." Yet the article cited only one named conservative source attacking the "sincerity" of Clinton's faith
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707080002?f=i_related

Author of NY Times Clinton marriage article acknowledged that amount of time Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to that of other congressional families
Summary: Patrick Healy, the author of a front-page May 23 New York Times article purporting to examine the married life of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton, acknowledged on CNN on May 31 that the time the Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to other families that include a member of Congress.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606010004

Just 2 examples. Check the MM links on the right for a few more. For 15 years the nyts has trashed Bill and Hillary and dems in general. The articles are as outrageous as they are endless. Somebody here says the times has been sucking up to the Clintons for 15 years. I point out how outrageous that is and you don’t like it. I figure we’re all big boys and girls here. When somebody says the earth is flat I’m gonna call them on it.

Well how about you. What do you make of that? What do you make of the idea that the nyts has been sucking up to the Clintons for 15 years?

If Webb or McCaskill had lost their razor-thin races, the Senate would be led by Mitch McConnell.

That's kinda funny since Webb is a populist and you apparently choose him as an example of a winger in the mold of Harold Ford. If that is not what you are saying, then I apology for misunderstanding.

There is a difference, and you shouldn't pretend there is not.

There have to be people here who remember when the entire Democratic delegation from the South was segregationist. Committee chairmen were mostly southerners, lily white southerners of course. The widely acclaimed Fulbright stated openly he had to vote for segregation as the price of remaining in the senate. The price was far too high.

I wasn't overly fond of those days. Much prefer the unregenerate bigots are mostly Republicans, whoever controls Congress.

Good to stand for things. If one stands for nothing but power, it is not particularly conducive to good legislating I think.

The current meme amounts to putting the bad guys in and fixing things later. Things tend to not get fixed but only deteriorate.

Best, Terry

Ok, in the spirit of calling out someone who is arguing the earth is flat, please link to the commenter who said that the NY Times has been sucking up to the Clintons for the last 15 years.

I can't find it. You're making a straw man argument, yes?