Sewell Chan

NYT's Chan Pens Two Puff Pieces to Offset Thursday's 'Obama Rejected at G-20' Faux Pas
By Tom Blumer | November 14, 2010 | 9:50 AM EST

Don't go overboard with it, but have some pity on Sewell Chan at the New York Times.

On Thursday evening online and in Friday's print edition, Chan was among three Times reporters who composed a report ripping President Obama's lack of results at the G-20 summit. The piece's original title -- "Obama's Economic View is Rejected on World Stage" -- originally appeared online and actually made its way into the print edition. The headline apparently didn't sit well with someone at the Times. As I noted in a previous post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), it was changed to "Obama Trade Strategy Runs Into Stiff Resistance" sometime on Friday.

That was apparently not enough to satisfy whoever is charge of politically correct revisionism at the Times. Chan seems to have been assigned the thankless task of composing not one, but two, kiss-and-make-up pieces to smooth things over.

NYT Print Edition G-20 Headline ('Obama's Economic View Is Rejected') Watered Down Online
By Tom Blumer | November 12, 2010 | 6:08 PM EST

Rush mentioned this when he opened his show today, and it deserves a bit of graphic support.

Today's New York Times print edition has a headline at the top right which reads: "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage" (captured here for future reference).

Ouch. But there's also a story about the story, specifically concerning its stinging headline.

Study in Bias: Two Takes on Financial Regs -- Journal vs. NY Times as Pointed Out by CNBC’s Kernen
By Jeff Poor | March 15, 2010 | 7:13 PM EDT

It's a topic that would probably make the average individual's eyes glaze over, but will have a profound impact on the economy - for better or worse. The topic - financial regulation reform.

With Senate Banking Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., setting his proposal out for the public, the take away on the reporting from two of the country's major newspapers - The New York Times and Wall Street Journal can give readers a view where their reporters' loyalties lie.

On CNBC's March 15 "Squawk Box," co-host Joe Kernen raised this point - the Journal with its more pro-Wall Street point of view and the Times with a liberal pro-Democratic Party one.

"You - I like the way you highlighted the Journal's take, ‘Ohh, this thing is ahh, much worse,' but The New York Times - ‘consensus-building,'" Kernen said. "But The New York Times is talking about consensus-building within the Democratic Party, I think, right? I mean, normally that's who they're speaking to, isn't it?"