Sunday, May 19, 2013


How Media Progressives Like Those At
The New York Times Go About
Shaping The 'Correct' Perception
People Should Have Of News Stories

Some real news came out of the release of the Inspector General's report on the IRS abuse, and from the Congressional hearings this week.  The Obama administration lied when it claimed it had no idea the IRS was targeting Conservative groups for delays & denials of their applications for tax-exempt status.  

Everybody lied.  The then-IRS Commissioner lied last year to Congress when he insisted no such targeting was going on, and Obama lied when he claimed he learned of the IRS scandal just last week by reading the newspapers.  

But you wouldn't really know that if you read the New York Times.  You MIGHT if you dug way down deep into the story towards the end, if you can read a little between the lines.  

Thankfully, as the following screenshots will show, you can learn for yourself how a breaking news story containing REAL new information gets 'massaged' by a media professional to ensure that readers come away with the 'correct' impression.  

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/05/18/nyts-peters-cleans-jonathan-weismans-original-report-fridays-irs-scandal
This is Jonathan Weisman.  He's sorry for reporting real news 
& promises it won't happen again.

When Jonathan Weisman first put his story up on Friday following more Congressional testimony, this is what the headline  and the opening sentence looked like:  


Now, notice what Weisman did here: in the HEADLINE and in the OPENING SENTENCE he revealed the MAJOR NEWS that came out of that day's testimony.  The IG directly contradicted the Obama administration's claim it had no idea anything was wrong at the IRS or that certain groups and citizens were being targeted for harassment due to 'incorrect' political beliefs.  

In other words, WEISMAN DID WHAT A REPORTER IS SUPPOSED TO DO.  He led with the news and made it easy to see.  

Well that really bothered somebody higher up, who decided that Weisman's piece was 'incomplete' and needed some 'massaging' to bring out the REAL STORY.  

Take a look at what Weisman's original piece was turned into after it was helpfully 'edited' by Jeremy W. Peters: 
Hello! I'm Jeremy Peters, the Political Morale Officer
here at the NYT's!  I see Jonathan left the real news out of his article!
No problem, I can fix that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?_r=0


As you can see, Jeremy W. Peters knew EXACTLY what Weisman's article needed; the real story is about the REPUBLICANS trying to use this breaking scandal for their own political benefit.  

So how could Weisman have left out the word 'Republicans' in the headline? How could he have not inserted Republican attempts to enlarge the scandal to score political points against the White House in the very first sentence?  Well Peters made sure those were the very first things that got changed.  

Peters must have also wondered: Hey Johnathan, WTF? Why are you LEADING with the IG's testimony that he informed top administration officials of the scandal back in 2012?  Don't you realize this directly contradicts what Obama & the administration spent all this week claiming? Why the bloody blue hell would you make THAT the lede?  Are you seriously trying to give your readers the sense there's a REAL scandal here instead of just another political witchhunt?  No man, you gotta BURY that crap and  hide it way further down in the story like this: 

Weisman's original opening sentence: 


What Peter's butchered it into way down in the 9th paragraph: 

See Johnathan? THAT'S how it's done, bro!  You change it from 'senior Treasury officials', which reveals a bunch of top Administration people knew, to just the 'Treasury's general counsel', a single person.  It's important to give the present administration as much cover as you can! Are you taking notes, bro? 

In the USSR's military, there was the military commander and then there was the 'Morale Officer' which is a kind way of saying Communist Party hack.  The military commander would make decisions and then would have to run them by the Morale Officer first for approval.  That often meant sound military decisions were changed and suborned to stupid party ideology.  

How is what Peters did to Weisman's article any different?  Sound reporting was 'massaged' until it reflected Party Ideology.  There is no way anybody can call that revised article anything but propaganda.  

From a real news story into a political hack job - The NYT's at it's best! 

Congratulations, media 'journalists' like those at the New York Times.  You don't break news any more, you cover it up.  You don't speak truth to power, you cover for The Power.  How's it feel to be today's version of the USSR's Pravda?  

Since Jeremy Peters is on Twitter at @jwpetersNYT , how's about we all go tell him what a smashingly good job he did improving the article by burying the real news & interjecting a lot of political spin?  


Youse guyz can follow me on Twitter at @drawandstrike if you really want to.  

UPDATE:  It's #ACCOUNTABILITYWATCH DAY 10 since Lois Lerner tried her 'controlled explosion' on Friday May10th.  You know what one of the biggest outrages of the IRS scandal is? 

That the Obama administration quickly proffered two patsies who weren't even in charge when most of the abuses took place.  A guy who was leaving next month anyway and a guy who'd been on the job a grand total of 8 days.  

That's NOT accountability.  Accountability would be the people in charge at the time the abuse took place getting fired, not the people who replaced them.  But for some reason the MSM seems pretty darn reluctant to point out that Lois Lerner and Sarah Hall Ingram still have jobs at the IRS.  

Why is that?  

31 comments:

  1. Don't dignify them by calling them "progressives." Call them what they are: totalitarian statists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Let people SEE what "progressive" really means.

      Delete
    2. Father ConfessorMay 23, 2013 at 9:20 AM

      I respectfully disagree. You're letting them define what progress is. Cool Arrow is correct. They are not "liberals" nor "progressives".

      Delete
  2. It was nice of the NYTs to provide such a useful, easy-to-share, demonstration of how they convert news into propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If my memory is correct, I think Weisman came over from the WSJ. Apparently he doesn't yet know how the NYT's does it's business, so Peter's came in for the 'save'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like Peter went a little heavy on the hair coloring in that photo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's important to bust the MSM on this crap as much as possible, but there's one nuance in your analysis that needs correcting: reporters generally don't write their own headlines, and I highly doubt Jonathan Weisman had any hand at any stage in crafting the headlines.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is so creepy. At one point I really believed that most reporters were committed to getting at the truth. What happened to this country?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Fourth Estate became a Fifth Column.

      Delete
  7. I'm old enough to remember when the New York Times was on the side of Americans — all Americans — against an overweening government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father ConfessorMay 23, 2013 at 9:21 AM

      How far back was that? 1960's? 1950's?

      Delete
  8. Since Anonymous 8:19 said what I was going to say, I'll just add that, in the movie, Sarah Ingram Hall will be played by Dana Carvey.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You said
    "Congratulations, media 'journalists' like those at the New York Times. You don't break news any more, you cover it up. You don't speak truth to power, you cover for The Power."
    The times has a long tradition of covering for power. Have you forgotten their support of Castro?
    Have you forgotten the horrid Walter Duranty? During one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century,the government induced famine in the Ukraine in which millions starved to death, he wrote (this was the NYT headline) "Russians Hungry, But Not Starving"
    I'd say the NYT has been pretty consistently true to form.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cliff Robertson, as CIA spook, asks Redford, "What if they don't print it?"
    Three Days Of The Condor,1974

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can send Jeremy a nice note, right here (I did!):
    http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/p/jeremy_w_peters/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. People forget that in the novel 1984 this was precisely what the central character Winston Smith's job consisted of - rewriting old new stories to make them fit with the current party line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1 with a side-order of amen!

      Delete
  13. You can send Mr. peters an email at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jeremy_w_peters/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...outstanding post, I wish more people would document these kind of changes. I stopped reading USAToday because of their blatant partisanship in featuring headlines that were mostly unrelated to the story content but full of partisan venom.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As to the question of how these malfeasant hacks still have jobs at the IRS; I'd say it's twofold, first, they were doing exactly what they were put there by the Obama administration to do, second, they have a despicable public employee union that makes it impossible to fire them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Very good post, unfortunately it is what too many of us see in the media every day.

    One comment - You buried the lede in the posting. You should have lead with the NYT screenshots. I saw this same story link on several blogs, and stopped reading about the third caption. I missed the BIG story the first time, because it was buried 8 inches down in the posting, and the first paragraphs did not match what was linked.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brian Cates lied about being in the military.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was a very relevant point. Please expand upon it. In as much detail as you can, since you believe this somehow relevant to the discussion here.

      Delete
  18. GREAT article! BUT:

    That Sarah Hall Ingram is heading up ObamaCare for the IRS *SHOULD* be of concern to you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wоw, supeгb blog fοrmаt! How lοng hаѵе you bеen running a
    blog for? you made blogging glancе eaѕy. The tоtal
    look of your web ѕite is еxcellent, as nеatlу аs the content mateгial!


    my web-site: http://Www.st-albans-plumbers.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very nice article, exactly what I needed.

    Here is my site: please click the up coming website page ()

    ReplyDelete
  21. It was the first of its kind to supply full daily news broadcasts. The company's 24-hour coverage became an immediate success and helped to launch their company from a mainly US-based platform to a world-wide sensation. It was also the first company in the US to firmly provide news coverage.Being one of the most popular sources for news in all of US history. has now gone online, and is one of the top news sites on the internet, available to subscribers world wide instantly through a web browser.
    While most of these organizations still report quality news, the internet has spawned a number of sites that comment more than report current news. Other sites have emerged to consolidate the top news. People should do some research before relying too much on a single service.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wikipedia is the sophisticated West. The comments of the knowledgeable, who habitually are busy people, are speedily reversed by those with contrary agendas and nothing healthier to do. Slap on the wrist lector! News

    ReplyDelete
  23. iParrot Post is a global read and reporting news platform that enable users to post their account of events witnessed, worthy local and International news. iParrot Post is a breaking news portal.iParrot Post exists to provide independent news and information to the masses, comprised of news feeds from around the world. We enable our users and subscribers to submit local News that they see as important. It is also a portal to allow users and subscribers to comment and contribute to the News events of the day. Worldwide News UK | English UK News | Local UK News | UK Political News | English British Sports News | Business UK News | Breaking UK News | Technology UK News |

    ReplyDelete