The New York Times is going the way of MSNBC. I suspect they're going to find that appealing to the Angry Left is not a successful business model.
Rather than investigate the campaign donations paid out to Senators Dodd, Clinton, and specifically, Barack Obama, by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the NYT focused instead on McCain aide Rick Davis's employment by the consulting firm, Davis & Manafort.
The McCain campaign's response was quick and direct:
the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006. Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Let's play compare and contrast: The NYT found a Mccain campaign adviser's former employment to be front page newsworthy, but ignored the campaign donations given to Barack Obama by Fannie Mae.
Should the NYT hold the two of these men to the same standard? Which of their roles in the housing crisis should feel the greatest heat of journalistic criticism?
The lesson, as always, from the NYT, is that they will run stories on the flimsiest of evidence if they will hurt John McCain, but will ignore anything negatively related to Barack Obama.
Americans are smart enough to see through the biases of the NYT. As the Grey Lady continues to editorialize its news reporting into insignificance, it will continue its downard spiral towards insolvency. Don't believe me? Look no further than MSNBC for a cautionary tale.