How the New York Times and Charlie Savage Lie
Today offers a good lesson in the mechanics of how the New York Times twists the truth. As he often is, today’s truth twister is Charlie Savage. Savage won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on politicization of the Bush DOJ. He received the resumes of Bush-era DOJ attorney hires in a saga covered numerous times at PJ Media. I cover Savage’s reporting in my book Injustice, and how he failed to mention all of the attorneys hired in the Bush DOJ, but only the ones which fit his narrative. In contrast, PJ Media did Charlie’s job the right way during the Obama administration. We FOIA’ed ALL of the Obama DOJ hires, and wrote about Every Single One of them here. The scoreboard: 113 out of 113 hires were leftists or political. Savage only reported on some of the attorneys hired; we reported on all of them.
Savage today provides America an example how the New York Times lies. Savage was in Austin, as I was, last Tuesday to cover Eric Holder’s speech. I counted at one point 127 people at the rally held by True the Vote, where I spoke. The story could have been written by Eric Holder’s Press Harpy at the Office of Public Affairs. Then again, there isn’t much daylight between the New York Times and the government these days.
Here is how Savage portrays the 127 who came to the True the Vote rally:
Outside, half a dozen protesters waited within shouting distance of his motorcade, and a phalanx of police officers waited to escort him to the airport. But as Mr. Holder lingered inside, the protesters eventually drifted away. (emphasis added).
Of course, Savage might claim he was talking about the protesters after the speech. Why? Aren’t the 127 before Holder’s speech voicing substantive opposition to Holder the more worthy mention? It would be if the New York Times cared about objectivity, which of course it does not. Indeed the Times runs a photo of a small portion of the large rally. And even this photo has 18 people in it, not “half a dozen.” Savage wants you to think six people protested Holder instead of 127.
Consider Savage’s second instance of journalistic mischief this week. On Tuesday, I watched Savage from three feet away interview Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote. Totally unnecessary disclosure: True the Vote is a client. He asked Englebrecht if she had ever personally witnessed voter fraud or voter impersonation at the polls. Englebrecht answered that she did not personally witness it, but she managed a program that documented dozens of instances of illegalities at the polls, and more than one instance of people voting multiple times, under assumed identities with multiple voter registration cards. How did Savage report Englebrecht’s answer?
Such problems, Ms. Engelbrecht said, included people showing up at polls without any identification, or showing up with multiple voter registration cards in different names, and being allowed to vote; she said she had not witnessed such irregularities during her own service as a volunteer at polling places, but had heard about them happening from other poll watchers.
Savage presents her answer as if it contains an urban myth. Savage fails to note that True the Vote produced business records and voluminous written reports of the eyewitnesses to this voter fraud.
Of course, we have come to expect bias and errors from the New York Times. Savage’s own story has this confession of error at the end:
Correction: December 13, 2011, Tuesday
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: A previous version of this article misstated when Robert Driscoll worked for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; it was in the administration of George W. Bush, not Ronald Reagan’s. (And a previous correction misstated that it was the elder George Bush’s administration.)
But wait… when you read the article, there is no mention of Robert Driscoll. A mistaken correction, perhaps? Not really. You see, Robert Driscoll appeared in the original version of the story. Adding the Englebrecht quote required Savage to purge Driscoll because we know Savage can’t bear to have more than one source that opposes his own world view.
One suspects that even if his managing editor Dean Baquet knew about Savage’s errors and false statements, he wouldn’t care. After all, accuracy at the New York Times is no longer as important as the agenda. Three cheers for Charlie and a job well done.
Yet another tiresome example of how the Fourth Estate has failed in its mission to simply report news and be independent gate-keepers. Instead too many have decided they want more attention, more influence and will no longer be passive but actively make news and assist in electing officials or keeping them in power. Savage should be fired for being a propagandist. Savage would not be out of place at vintage Pravda.
Someday, if we ever grow up as a nation, the American people need to take a very long, hard, and close look at the Constitutional protections afforded to, and routinely abused by, the media. Did the Founding Fathers intend for the press to become the propaganda arm for one political party? Does the First Amendment give the MSM the right to “openly and actively” interfere with our election process, and again, for the benefit of only one of the political parties?
Freedom of the press? Free to do what?
Thankfully free to do most anything. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
There are several errors in Savage’s brief description of Fast and Furious.
“Fast and Furious was an operation in which agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, investigating an arms-trafficking network working for a Mexican drug cartel, sometimes did not move quickly to arrest low-level suspected “straw buyers” and seize their guns because the agents were seeking to build a bigger case. They lost track of hundreds of weapons; two guns linked to a suspect in the case were found near the site where a Border Patrol agent was killed.”
Agents “sometimes did not move quickly enough”. Pretty much every time which is a lot more that sometimes. The modus operandi of the operation was to not move on the guns at all, just let them walk.
They lost track of “hundres of weapons”. An accurate description would be thousands or say approximately 2000.
Wow! The New York Times Lies!
I’m shocked!
Now. Where did I leave my smelling salts?
Man, after reading this I will never subscribe to the NYT online. I get the print version now from my neighbor to use in our outhouse but I would never pay for it!
Dog bites man. Obama is on another 4-Million vacation to Hawaii. The New York Times spins the truth.
Nothing new to hear, here…ya hear?
I guess they really do have no shame.
I often wonder when my liberal friends might see Holder and Co. as less-than above board. They never will because John Stewart doesn’t make it a topic on his (Daily) show. He must not see the humor in letting guns walk and the resultant death of hundreds of Mexicans and a BP agent. Surely there’s a joke somewhere. Color him lazy.
The humor angle would be that claims made by this administration and others sympathetic to the Bradys implied that 90% of the guns used in border violence came from the U.S. That was a lie, so they just tried to ‘bump’ the numbers a bit in their favor. Salting-the-mine is pretty funny, don’t you think? Any prankster would- “you’ve been punked!”.
I’m so glad for the 2nd amendment, because without it, gun ownership might go the way of the 100 watt light bulb- banned on Jan.1. There’s a joke there too but I doubt Mr. Liebowitz will find it. “How many people have been killed by a lightbulb? We just banned a lightbulb!”
Mr. Savage will never be a Mr. Woodward or a Mr. Bernstein and how they give out Pulitzers is a real question? Must not be about facts or any really gritty investigative journalism. Why are the literate Americans reading newspapers like the NY Times or WaPo in fewer and fewer numbers? Maybe because they look to the Internet and PJMedia to get the truth. Sad for the newspaper advertisers.
The ignorati will always enjoy their daily dose of lefty propaganda – makes ‘em feel all warm and superior inside.
The simple thing of course, is for no one to allow themselves to be interviewed by the NYT, LA Times, or WaPo. Period. Neither should the GOP have their candidates debate on the alphabet channels. Stop this nonsense. It’s one reason i absolutely refuse to give to the RNC. I will support individual candidates but will not allow my little bit of money to be used for stupidity.
Pravda never compensated its minions as well as the American networks do.
You could say the NYT “lies like a rug,” but that would be an understatement. The NYT actually lies like a carpet, wall to wall carpet.
Mr. Adams should not have included the phrase, “Three cheers for Charlie and a job well done.” Now, he will say Adams liked his story.
Savage also gave cover to A G ‘My People’ Holder regarding My People’s assertion Congress, the boogeyman and the closet monster are ‘attacking him’ because he and the CiC are ‘African-American’.
Savage didn’t give NEARLY as much leeway to Bush’s dunderhead A G.
I wonder if Savage recalls the exact date/time when he sold out, gave up his ‘journalistic integrity’ to instead perfect his circus seal-like act on the Illiberal party.
What a d-bag.
-Independent voter.