New York Times' Leslie Wayne Continues Twisted Jihad Against Edwards

Comments (69)

CT Voter wrote on July 12, 2007 2:45 PM:

It is pretty remarkable, this belief that being wealthy is somehow in "sharp contrast" to his antipoverty stance.

Think about it. It appears that Ms. Wayne feels that an "antipoverty" candidate must be impoverished. And what, precisely, could an impoverished candidate accomplish? Not so much. So therefore, the only viable antipoverty candidate is in reality, an unviable candidate.

Whatta loser. The Times should be embarassed by this.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 12, 2007 2:47 PM:

That darned traitor to his class, John Edwards!

He's my preferred candidate, unless Al Gore gets in the race.

Greg Sargent wrote on July 12, 2007 2:50 PM:

that's what I'm sayin'! it's really bad.

Greg Sargent wrote on July 12, 2007 2:50 PM:

"traitor to his class." maybe that explains the animosity, eh?

rj wrote on July 12, 2007 2:53 PM:

Now, Greg, I'm sure these reporters are simply unaware of how many Democrats and progressives have been wealthy; who knew there was such a deficit in the knowledge of modern American history? And it's not as if there are any, say, Democratic Rockefellers or Kennedys in the current Senate.

Edwards campaign, six letters: JFK, FDR. Repeat, repeat, repeat...

chuckles wrote on July 12, 2007 2:59 PM:

Actually, if you think about who HAS stood up for the poor, it's been the extremely wealthy. FDR, JFK, RFK, JRE.

Not bad company to keep.

I'll take Democrats with Balls for $1000, Alex.

rj wrote on July 12, 2007 2:59 PM:

dupe deleted...

Blue in IA wrote on July 12, 2007 3:00 PM:

Warren Buffett opposes cuts in the estate tax and everyone falls all over themselves lauding his public-spiritedness.

Edwards calls for higher taxation on hedge funds and ... we get the "hair cut hypocrite" cant.

He really can't get a break.

Greg Sargent wrote on July 12, 2007 3:01 PM:

indeed. very good point. wonder whether wayne is aware of it...

global citizen wrote on July 12, 2007 3:04 PM:

Maybe I'll stop paying my $50 a year to the NYT so that they can learn how to care more about the poor.

global citizen

JanL wrote on July 12, 2007 3:05 PM:

Greg, have you contacted the Times' Ombudsman? This is sooo irritating!

Greg Sargent wrote on July 12, 2007 3:05 PM:

letters to the Times public editor, all....never hurt anyone

gqmartinez wrote on July 12, 2007 3:10 PM:

I agree with everything people said about being wealthy and still caring about poverty, etc., etc. But it seems to me that all of this could be avoided--given these people, maybe not--if Edwards never got his $400 haircut. Looking at his hair, does it looks like he really needs to pay $400? Seems a pretty standard cut to me. Or am I way off?

Personally, I'd rather see a discussion of Edwards anti-Poverty Senate record than read about his haircuts or how much his house costs.

edgery wrote on July 12, 2007 3:10 PM:

What I'm waiting for is the breaking news about the other Democratic candidates' personal grooming expenditures and personal wealth as a guide to their policy proposals.

In particular, I would hope--in the interest of fairness--Ms. Wayne will enlighten us on whether Clinton's views have changed since she acquired her latest coif or whether Obama's positions have adapted to his new home ownership status.

(/snark)

Greg Sargent wrote on July 12, 2007 3:13 PM:

I actually sent some stuff to him when she did the big front page hit piece. maybe folks should point out this latest to him, too...

drack26 wrote on July 12, 2007 3:19 PM:

I agree with this post completely.

There is way too much opinion in these pieces about Edwards.

Thank you for addressing this disturbing aspect of the coverage of the NY Times.

When I think of Wayne's last article, on the very day that Edwards was at Cooper Union giving a major policy address just downtown from the offices of the NY Times, and it was not even covered by a NY Times reporter, it's damn sad.

rj wrote on July 12, 2007 3:21 PM:

another dupe deleted (grrr)...

DaveW wrote on July 12, 2007 3:28 PM:

I think this "journalist's" offense is not in contrasting a pol's excessive wealth with his populist message, but in pretending that this makes Edwards different from all the other candidates. There are no non-millionaire candidates in this race in either party except possibly Kucinich. The need to be rich to be in politics is an issue that does need addressing, to my mind.

But it has nothing to do with Edwards. Every candidate in every party pays lip service to the "poor and disadvantaged". Even Republicans. So where was Wayne when the Bushes, Reagan, Clintons, Bloomberg, Giuliani and all the rest of the millionaires and billionaires were yapping about their compassion for the poor?

What the beltway elitist wannabes just can't tolerate is that Edwards seems like he really means it.

jsamuel wrote on July 12, 2007 3:31 PM:

(Start sarcasm)

Exactly, if John Edwards spent more time worrying about how much he spends on his hair and less time on fighting poverty, Iraq, and Universal Health Care he wouldn't be in this situation.

(End sarcasm)

koshembos wrote on July 12, 2007 3:44 PM:

Leslie Wayne seems to live on Republican Mars. As chucles said above, most major poverty fighters in this country were much richer than Edwards.

The whole world is full of poverty fighters whose fortunes are outstanding and exceed Edwards modest, for rich people, $30m.

A political reporter that doesn't know that should be on the police beat.

terryhallinan wrote on July 12, 2007 4:01 PM:

Dang it all. If I wasn't so poverty-stricken, I would give Edwards another handout.

Best, Terry

Crust wrote on July 12, 2007 4:02 PM:

My advice: Send the letter. In my experience (and I've done this a lot) I seldom hear anything back the first time, at least from the Times (Deborah Howell at WaPo is better). Three or four days later, I forward my email back again with a polite message asking if they had a chance to think about it. The response rate the second go round is much higher. I try to be unfailingly polite, which often requires sitting on an email for a while before sending it.

CT Voter wrote on July 12, 2007 4:23 PM:

I just mailed in a letter to Clark Hoyt objecting to Wayne's assertion that Edwards' wealth stands in stark contrast his poverty stance.

I didn't mention the haircut. I just want that story to go away.

oleeb wrote on July 12, 2007 4:54 PM:

The only appropriate response to the Times is to go on the offensive and right away. Edwards and his campaign ought to be flatly and loudly condemning the bullshit or as Greg put it "Drudge-friendly" hit piece. The Times is obviously in the tank for the interests of the corporate right. If Edwards fights back it will be good for his campaign, people will see he is unwilling to be spat upon over and over and not "do" something about it. Fighting back is also the only way to get them to lay off.

The right and the Republicans are terrified of Edwards and this is more proof of same.

marcf wrote on July 12, 2007 5:03 PM:

Greg your post is exactly in line with Bob Somerby's seemingly quixotic claims that the so-called main-stream-media is often our worst enemy. He is right, and you are right as well. I believe there are deep-rooted reasons for this, but the important question is: How do we change this behavior?

It is not good enough to point out each transgression. Rather we have to figure out how to make the reposter (and by extension the editor) pay a price however small for this kind of behavior. So the next reporter will think twice before doing it again.

I suggest a letter like this: "Leslie Wayne has been in many ways an excellent reporter, but s/he has shown clear bias against John Edwards, in repeated articles. I request that Wayne not be assigned to cover Edwards, from now on. I am sure that you have many other reporters appropriate for this task."

Likewise Patrick Healy articles about Hillary Clinton.

Greg Sargent wrote on July 12, 2007 5:10 PM:

yep -- I agree with you. extracting some kind of pain is the way to go. letter looks great -- why not send it???

and agreed re healy

theodicey wrote on July 12, 2007 5:30 PM:

Leslie Wayne has made cattiness her signature method, a style that stands in stark contrast to the fact that most people named Wayne are actually murderers.

Bearpaw wrote on July 12, 2007 5:33 PM:

Think about it. It appears that Ms. Wayne feels that an "antipoverty" candidate must be impoverished. And what, precisely, could an impoverished candidate accomplish? Not so much. So therefore, the only viable antipoverty candidate is in reality, an unviable candidate.

Yup. And this sort of "logic" conveniently makes it easy for the punditocracy -- and anyone else who wants to use it as an excuse -- to avoid actually addressing the issue of poverty. Because having an honest discussion about the topic would make a whole lot of people pretty damn uncomfortable. DKC wrote on July 12, 2007 5:35 PM:

Add LBJ to the list. He had a huge ranch which was much bigger than Bush's.

The haircut in Beverly Hills was $175 and the haircutter added travel time. Is he not allowed to make a good living? That's what haircuts cost in Los Angeles. Some hairdressers make $2000 a day. Seems unAmerican not to pay the guy what he's worth. It's such a crock. I'm glad Edwards has spiffed up a bit, bought his wife a nice house and got a decent haircut.

This is the standard conservative or corporate shorthand that they try to have stick in the public's mind. You can't trust Edwards because he spends too much on his personal appearance. He's not rugged enough. No, they prefer a faker like Bush with a fake ranch and expensive suits who is always mentioning reporters' expensive suits.
And don't get me started on what is hypocrisy.
Can only an unhealthy doctor treat sick people?
Why, why, why, do we have to put up with this time and time again?
And if we found some poor guy, like Clinton, then we will spend eight years trying to find out who bought him off and what deals he had to pull to make money.
This article is dead on. It's just not reporting. It's opinion. It's gossip. It should be in the Style section. She should be yanked from the assignment. One Adam Nagourney is enough. Imagine covering Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign and only talking about his huge estate and his huge head of hair. You can bet that the cut he had wasn't from Clip and Curl.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

Bearpaw wrote on July 12, 2007 5:36 PM:

Warren Buffett opposes cuts in the estate tax and everyone falls all over themselves lauding his public-spiritedness.

Warren who?

Seriously, Buffet gets occasional "man bites dog" coverage for that stance and then everybody goes back to calling it the "death tax".

Bearpaw wrote on July 12, 2007 5:40 PM:

A political reporter that doesn't know that should be on the police beat.

Don't mistake what someone writes about with what they actually know. It's a pretty fair guess that the "reporter" is quite aware of the things you mention. expatjourno2 wrote on July 12, 2007 5:47 PM:

Mr. Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, a topic that stands in sharp contrast to his own $30 million net worth and which set him up for ridicule when it became public that he had paid $400 for a haircut.

Of course, had Edwards done the opposite of what Wayne criticizes him for, we might see this:

Mr Edwards, who cuts his own hair despite his 30 million net worth, has made austerity his signature issue and ignored growing poverty, a strategy that stands in sharp contrast to his modest beginnings as a mill-worker's son.

expatjourno2 wrote on July 12, 2007 5:51 PM:

What the beltway elitist wannabes just can't tolerate is that Edwards seems like he really means it.

What the beltway elitist wannabes really can't tolerate is that Edwards might do something about it.

destor23 wrote on July 12, 2007 6:25 PM:

By the way, does this reporter know anything at all about the world of finance?

Because for a good part of his career, before he took Berkshire Hathaway public, Warren Buffett was basically a hedge fund manager. Buffett has made a lot of his personal money from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed just like a hedge fund's 20% performance fee.

Buffett has also, for a long time, criticized the tax code that allows him to be taxed at a lower rate than his salaried employees. Nobody ever calls Buffett a hypocrite about that.

Edwards is making the same statement that Buffett has made. But, unlike Buffett, Edwards is trying to win a political position where he'll be able to do something about the problem.

Why is it that when rich business people talk about how unfair working stiffs have it in America they're considered compassionate, but when a rich guy runs for president, on a platform about addressing inequities in, by the way, a pretty mild manner (Edwards isn't begrudging anyone the right to be rich) they're accused of having an image problem?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

oleeb wrote on July 12, 2007 6:32 PM:

You can go ahead and send it but it will make no difference at all.

The way papers operate, the only way to cause them any "pain" that will register with them is to bring public heat on them. In public policy/political science handbooks it is called "expanding the debate". Regular people would call it publicly complaining so that the turf shifts from the bureaucratic channels the powers that be control at the paper to anyone and everyone who will listen/take part. That way it becomes something they must respond to or ignore it at their peril.

If you play their game and go through their channels it will make no difference at all. What will make a difference is when the reporters and editors fear that the public no longer respects them, that the public in fact thinks they are predisposed against Democrats. That can only happen if first Edwards and his campaign and then other Democrats--elected and unelected relentlessly remind people of the hit job they did on Edwards that had no substance behind it at all. That's the only way possible to impact them. Anything else and you're just fooling yourself.

It can't hurt to send letters and make angry posts on their website. I'm just saying it won't make any difference since they ignore that stuff as should be apparent to all by now.

Glenn in NYC wrote on July 12, 2007 6:40 PM:

What do you expect from a paper that thinks Maureen Dowd has writing talent worthy of a regular Op-Ed column?

Voice wrote on July 12, 2007 6:52 PM:

Gqmartinez: Please, don't do this.

It's exhausting for many of us to have to keep explaining the fallaciousness of this suggestion -- that Edwards is culpable of "something" because he didn't have the good sense to know a $400 dollar hair cut would land him in the doghouse.

Romney? Thompson? Clinton? Obama? -- do we have any idea what the hair/makeup costs associated with their public appearances are? No, of course we don't.

This is an entirely unilluminating and, worse, destructive argument to keep propelling forward. Please reconsider raising it in the future (or at least, be fair and do the research to uncover the charges other candidates pay on this front as well).

Meanwhile, the rest of us can talk about actual policy issues . . . .

Voice wrote on July 12, 2007 6:53 PM:

sorry Edgery, didn't mean to jump your argument . . . I froze at the comment above yours and essentially argued the same (but posted well after you).

good reminder to read through all the comments before jumping the gun --

markg8 wrote on July 12, 2007 6:55 PM:

A former Bush fan but an otherwise unrequited wingnut, a Ohio CPA who bills himself as Dennis the Peasant was criticizing Edwards for his big house and I set him straight by informing him this is America. In America if you're successful and earn lots of money you can buy your family a big house if you want. It's an argument most wingnuts would give themselves a hernia arguing against. He didn't even try.

markg8 wrote on July 12, 2007 6:57 PM:

"traitor to his class" is what they used to call FDR.

Taylor wrote on July 12, 2007 6:59 PM:

It's pretty clear what's going on here. Fundamentally Keller (like any manager) is responding to what his higher-ups want. And the elites that rule our media do not want a return to New Deal politics.

Simple.

markg8 wrote on July 12, 2007 7:01 PM:

I for one want to know how much Guiliani's panties cost. That guy goes first class all the way so I'm sure it's not some "Hanes Her Way" crap.

markg8 wrote on July 12, 2007 7:05 PM:

I'm starting to think the Times has an institutional bigotry towards southernors. Just can't stand the accent. It would explain this and the crazy Whitewater coverage in the 1990s.

Karen444 wrote on July 12, 2007 7:31 PM:

Hmmm. There IS an issue about rich Democrats but it is weird that John Edwards is the target. As I understand it, Edwards made virtually all his money before entering public life. But there is an issue.

Last week, I saw a bit of an interview with Al Gore on CNBC and Gore's net worth is now $100 million, virtually all of it since leaving office. What kind of deals resulted in $100 million in 6 years and why was Gore let in on them? No one is going to believe its his own enterprise.

Bill Clinton has made $40 million since leaving office and everyone knew his wife was going to run for president and would be a front runner.

These are shocking amounts of money that these 2 big Democrats have taken in. I think it would be legitimate and worthwhile for the NY Times to do some reporting.

OxonHoya wrote on July 12, 2007 7:32 PM:

It's hard to add much more to what's here, but I think the dynamic is a bit more robust. Yes, the problem is that Edwards might actually mean that we have to help the poor and that, as President, he might enact policies to help them and the rest of us who are just plain old working smoes and middle class stiffs. Surely a paper that daily features advertisements of jewelry and clothing costing thousands upon thousands of dollars has no clue what faces most Americans -- and really doesn't want to. Ditto their obsession with Ivy League admissions processes (not to mention Harvard gossip) when most Americans can barely afford to send their children to the local, comprehensive regional state institutions. The hypocrisy is rank. With the excepton of Bob Herbert none of their columnists is at all credible when addressing the issue of poverty or class.

It's also the case that it's important for the NYT to advocate "the horse race" and for them to acknowledge only two credible candidates in this race. And those two candidates have been annointed precisely because they are 'tame'. Hilary Clinton cares about the poor how? What has she said that acknowledges or addresses the needs of millions of Americans who need government to help level the playing field in our increasingly oligarchic society? Obama has more 'real life' credibility here given his time spent as a community organizer, but he's too busy trying to demonstrate that white America shouldn't fear a black man -- or black rage -- to really push anything home. The NYT likes the scenario of the 'gender' candidate vs. the 'race' candidate --- and that doesn't allow any discussion of class.

John Edwards has walked picket lines with workers, walked 'a mile in their shoes' as part of a SEIU program to allow politicians to experience the life a normal US worker, and he actually goes to New Orleans when the cameras aren't rolling to give a little back to those people that our current administration has abandoned.

As for the NYT --- it would rather talk about a haircut!! Sheesh.

rumrunner wrote on July 12, 2007 7:59 PM:

The truly fine men and women who made the New York Times the paragon of American journalism in the 1950s, 60s and 70s should be spinning in their graves over how the paper has been run since people like Raines and Keller took over.
You'll recall that it was the Times crowd who concocted the Whitewater "scandal," who harbored frauds like Rick Bragg, who slandered a Chinese-born scientist for months, and who allowed Judith Miller to propagandize week in and week out about Sada Hussein's WMDs with virtually no supervision or questioning.
Reston, Wicker, Truman Daniel, Harrison Salisbury, etc., where are you?

VictorLaszlo wrote on July 12, 2007 8:05 PM:

Heh - I came in to say:

"That's it - I've had it with these wealthy candidates. I'm voting for the middle-class candidate! Oh wait..."

But you pretty much have it covered.

mikes_tky wrote on July 12, 2007 8:33 PM:

More Hypocrisy: Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, has a foundation that works on public health issues as well as fighting disease around the world.

But Bill Gates is fully vaccinated and has the best medical care money can buy!

Does the hypocrisy of Bill Gates know no bounds?

goofer wrote on July 12, 2007 8:45 PM: Mr. Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, a topic that stands in sharp contrast to his own $30 million net worth and which set him up for ridicule when it became public that he had paid $400 for a haircut. Now why would that be a problem? What kind of twisted jerk starts complaining about the fact that Edwards' pays his barbers  too much? Isn't that what this is about, that a rich guy pays too much for people who labour for him?  Remember that rich guy with the polio, who got elected three times? You know the rich guy elected  by the poor folk during the depression?  He used to own and sail yachts for a hobby. Yachts. When only plutocrats and kings and nobles could afford that hobby. And none, none, questioned his rich habits as being detrimental to his ethics. Ben Franklin wrote on July 12, 2007 8:52 PM:

Greg!!!!!!!!!! This is outstanding work!!! But it could be better if you would only remember to paint the full picture! That this is part of a LARGER PATTERN that extends way back... for example, to the 20-month long assault on Al Gore's "phoniness".

When covering the Time's crap reporting, always TIE IT TO THE PAST, GREG! It's important!!!!!

PLEASE GREG!!!! PLEASE DO THIS FOR ME!!!!

sully18 wrote on July 12, 2007 9:46 PM:

sully18
"My grandfather, who had only a third grade education used to be proud to read the New York Times,daily,front page to back.
Now,I use it to wrap the garbage."
-Ray McGovern,former CIA analyst

The Times has some very good writers,but this article is juvenile, much like Michael Gordon`s cheer leading for war with Iran,and anything David Brooks writes.

oleeb wrote on July 12, 2007 10:21 PM:

"Maybe"? I'd say definitely.

oleeb wrote on July 12, 2007 10:24 PM:

It might be a bias against southerners, but I'd say it is a whole lot more likely to be a bias against someone who threatens them and by them I mean the wealthy, the corporate elite, etc... You know, the rich guys who do what rich guys are supposed to do: steal from the poor to enrich themselves.

nachomama wrote on July 12, 2007 10:42 PM:

not to get into a pissing match, but as a regular times reader, i would agree with the previous comments re: maureen dowd and bob herbert, but feel that paul krugman and frank rich should be mentioned as people who have deftly and clearly written about the issues of class, poverty, and race.

Ann Hewitt Worthington wrote on July 12, 2007 11:23 PM:

All one has to do is spend a couple of days driving around North Carolina to understand the environment that gave rise to John Edwards's views, but that does involve leaving the island of Manhattan.

annefrank wrote on July 12, 2007 11:29 PM:

Glad you diaried this, Greg.
Obviously, there's not a level playing field since the NYT nor the media in general are questioning Obama's character regarding Rezko or Hillary's Mark Penn.
And certainly aren't mentioning Hillary paying $3000 in campaign funds for 2 hairdos, per WaPo.
And Romney has as many homes as Rudy has had wives.
I just don't understand why the media isn't analyzing the homes and haircuts of the OTHER millionaire candidates. Yeah - I know they're not advocating raising taxes on hedge funds and increasing minimum wage, but still...

rk wrote on July 12, 2007 11:43 PM:

There's a more pernicious aspect yet to the narrative that the NYT and other media outlets are building against Edwards. By saying that

Mr. Edwards has made poverty his signature issue, a topic that stands in sharp contrast to his own $30 million net worth...

they are making two points. 1)That wealthy Democrats are disqualified from discussing poverty. 2)That the only way to fight poverty is to prevent people from getting rich. Its easy to make the case that by fighting poverty, society can increase wealth accumulation opportunities for all citizens. If one holds that view there is nothing inconsistent about the wealthy fighting poverty; its in their financial self interest. The NYT, MSM and GOP view is that fighting poverty is a zero sum game; the poor can only move up if the middle class loses ground. In this world view a wealthy individual that proposes fighting poverty is particularly despicable; he is willing to spend your resources while trying to shelter his own.

The MSM tries to do the same with climate change and Al Gore. His financial success is portrayed as being inconsistent with his message that we need to reconfigure our carbon usage. The MSM/GOP approach only makes sense if reconfiguring our carbon usage will require an economic contraction.

The NYT, MSM, and GOP are not only trying to discredit John Edwards. They are trying to place issues into specific frames. It is these rather explicit assumptions that inform the NYT/MSM/GOP attacks on Democratic candidates that need to be rebutted.

ewastud wrote on July 13, 2007 1:04 AM:

Yes, indeed. Leslie Wayne is shaping up to be the NYT's answer to WP's John Solomon. Both appear to be highly biased journalists with an axe to grind on targeted Democratic political figures. I suspect both are secretly on some other payroll besides the respective newspapers they ostensibly work for. They both strike me as exceptionally corrupt "journalists."

poligirl wrote on July 13, 2007 7:09 AM:

Here is my contribution to the NY Times regarding Leslie Wayne:

Thank you Leslie, for repeatedly confirming by your terribly slanted articles concentrating solely on John Edwards, that the establishment, both MSM and corporate, are indeed scared out of their wits about a possible Edwards presidency. The more of a threat, the harder and more frequent the hit.

And New York Times, I know you have always been in competition with the Washington Post, but is this sleazy, hit-piece style of so-called "journalism" really a competition you WANT to win?

You are becoming a willing participant in the politics of personal destruction. What on earth happened to your journalistic ethics?

My next letter will be essentially the same to WaPo next time Solomon strikes; unfortunately, I probably won't have to wait long...

--poligirl

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead

renato wrote on July 13, 2007 8:23 AM:

It is pretty remarkable, this belief that being wealthy is somehow in "sharp contrast" to his antipoverty stance.

Think about it. It appears that Ms. Wayne feels that an "antipoverty" candidate must be impoverished. And what, precisely, could an impoverished candidate accomplish? Not so much. So therefore, the only viable antipoverty candidate is in reality, an unviable candidate.

If I hadn't been travelling on an airplane, I might have said much the same thing... well put.

By Wayne's reasoning, only someone who has had cancer should be qualified to do anything about cancer... only a landmine victim should be qualified to do anything about landmines... only someone who is obese should be qualified to do anything about obesity... etc etc ad nauseum.

Fucking ridiculous. And the cherry on the cake is... a rich man getting a $400 haircut??? How obscene! Of course, if he went to the $10 barber down the street, he'd be ridiculed for phoniness.

renato wrote on July 13, 2007 8:29 AM:

"traitor to his class." maybe that explains the animosity, eh?

Oh, absolutely that is what it is. Scratch the surface of these sorts of criticisms and just barely beneath the surface is a Republican's utter contempt for any rich person who doesn't adopt a 'screw-you-I-got-mine, let-them-eat-cake' attitude towards the poor.

renato wrote on July 13, 2007 8:35 AM:

same could be said for Bobo and Friedman.

Pete Sikora wrote on July 13, 2007 10:20 AM:

Greg - you're doing great work. Loved your writing at the Observer too. The Edwards coverage really is remarkable. Not to get all marxist, but this feels like a class thing: most media writers and editors can't stand a populist economic justice candidacy.

Economic populism strikes them as uninformed nonsense that policy-wise would hurt the people it claims to help. It's all just so thoroughly unserious. And didn't Mondale lose? That's what they think... and it leaks into their coverage. Fundamentally, they don't relate to economic anxiety issues.

marcf wrote on July 13, 2007 1:16 PM:

I agree with most of you that the so-called main-stream-media, including and perhaps especially the NYT, is often our worst enemy. I DISAGREE strongly with most of you who think the MSM is doing this on purpose, doing this because they secretly favor the GOP. They do NOT favor the GOP, they don't trash Edwards or Clinton or Gore in 2000 on purpose -- They just can't help themselves !!!

In fact the NYT is as good as you are going to get on a national scale. It is definitely a liberal newspaper. They can and do hire some of the best reporters in the country, and I'm sure that Leslie Wayne and Patrick Healy are among them. So there must be deep-rooted reasons for their anti-liberal output. I believe it is the clash between the ultimate liberal press desideratum -- impartiality -- and the ultimate requirement for the job of reporter -- to write interesting articles.

Think for a second and you'll see where that leads -- the liberal reporter has to trash Democratic candidates!

xargaw wrote on July 13, 2007 1:18 PM:

So I suppose that the billions Bill and Melinda Gates have given and the billions Warren Buffet gave to the Gates Foundation to be used are incidental because these men are wealthy. Any meaningful contribution, personal wealth, time, work, etc. are significant to those that need assistance. This writer, like so many others, is simply looking for any avenue to discredit someone the writer wants to discredit. Americans are sick of this kind of journalism. This is the kind of crap you would expect from FOX and Rupert's papers.

timbo wrote on July 13, 2007 1:26 PM:

I hasten to add that under this criteria, we shouldn't be in Iraq. I think someone should point that out to the "reporter"--or whatever they're calling it these days--at the Times.

Alabasterjones wrote on July 13, 2007 2:18 PM:

I work at a non-profit that serves low income clients. A healthy chunk of the budgets of social service agencies comes from donations from individual wealthy people, or foundations established by wealthy people. If the rich had no business advocating for the poor, the public service sector would die.

Anyone suggesting otherwise has no idea of how the concrete business of helping disadvantaged population gets accomplished.

Alabasterjones wrote on July 13, 2007 2:21 PM:

Now that I think of it, my organization got funding from the NY Times foundation. So apparently the Sulzberger family doesn't see a contradiction between their wealth and their generosity.

ohiomeister wrote on July 16, 2007 6:07 PM:

Same with coverage of Gore's big house instead of his environmental efforts, Dean's scream, Obama's race stuff, etc.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)