RSS 2.0 Follow Us!
 

Related Posts

NY Times Editorial Omits Obama’s “It did not” Update: Times Corrects Text w/out Noting Error

John on January 13, 2011 at 8:22 am

From an editorial on Obama’s speech in today’s NY Times:

It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents. The president’s role in Tucson was to comfort and honor, and instill hope.

In other words, the Times has pointed out the villains so the President didn’t have to dirty his hands with that last night. That’s how they see it. It’s not that the President disagrees with them, it’s just that last night wasn’t the moment to bring it up. They then highlight this bit of Obama’s speech:

This horrific event, he said, should be a turning point for everyone — “not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”

Notice what’s missing? Here’s what the President actually said:

If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy–it did not–but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.

This came at about 27:30 into this video. Having missed the President’s point completely, the Times goes on to once again attack Sarah Palin:

The president’s words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.

Memo to the NY Times. The ugliness that continues to swirl started, in part, on your own site. It continues to swirl, in part, because of the publication Monday of another Paul Krugman column blaming the right for a “climate of hate” that led to this tragedy. Last night the President explicitly rejected this formulation. “It did not” was not a rejection of Sarah Palin, but of you. He was talking about you, NY Times! How did you miss it?

I suppose we all understand why the Times’ editors omitted that key line in Obama’s speech. They simply didn’t hear it.

Update: So sometime after 11:20 am EST when I published this post, the NY Times got around to correcting the omission. Full credit to Allahpundit for noticing the update. I find it odd that they let half a day go by with the wrong text and then corrected it without noting the change in the footer or anywhere. If you check the site now, you’d think it was there all along. I don’t do that sort of thing here. Shouldn’t the paper of record have higher standards?

Post to Twitter

Category: MSM & Bias |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.