NYT Jodi Wilgoren

If any of you read her regularly you know what kind of crapola she writes about Kerry. This is the reporter the Times has sent to cover the presumptive Democratic nominee. And she loathes him. Why did they send her? I have no idea, but I hope you will join me in emailing the editor about her and urge them to pull her off of this assignment.

Links to her story today from "on the trail" and an email addy:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/trail/index.html

onthetrail@nytimes.com

being as negative and contempuous of Kerry as some
of her other stuff has been.

Kerry's doing a good thing. "I'm aware of your problems,
I care about what happens to you." Whether Wilgoren
knows it or not, she's innoculating Kerry to the "effete
elite" slam that the Rove machine is going to trot out
later in the campaign.

There will be no George H.W. Bush and the grocery scanner
for John Kerry.

About Kerry's campaign aide. Let's see, Kerry is used to being "catered" to. His assistant is his "butler"; "...once, they shared a bathroom" when they stayed at a supporter's home in Iowa. She does not like her subject and should be taken off the campaign trail. Oh yeah, and the pb&j sandwiches. That was a major point with this "reporter". Subtle hints at homo eroticism regarding Kerry and his assistant. It was a horrible piece not meant to flatter.

That was the "other stuff" I was referring to. My
local paper (The Oregonian) put that piece of garbage
in the Living Section, which I thought was great.
(Daily Howler has her number, you should check that
site out, if you don't already.)

Did you ever see any of Kit Seeyle or Ceci Connolly's
writing about Gore? Absolute dreck, right along the
same lines as this drivel.

I call them The Heather's Club.

And yeah, Wilgoren is striving to become to Kerry what Seelye was to Gore during the previous presidential election. I haven't read too much from Connolly, but I gather she's cut from the same cloth as the other two. I do not understand why the NYT continues this lie-fest against the Democratic candidate, whomever it may be. I'm sick of it and I don't mind telling the Times so.

It's like The Times hires people right out of high school, or
at least they make sure the reporter's mentality is that of
a popular high school kid. What, it's a popularity contest
now???

We wrote, so many of us, that the NYT ombudsman supposedly researched the coverage of him. He decided it was all fine, all ok, no problem at all.

People told us not to worry. I agree, she has a goal toward our Democrats.

We cannot allow this to go on again unchallenged. Our political discourse is too important to let them make a mockery of it. Please everyone, if we all work together and give the NYT hell on a daily basis, perhaps we can affect change. Certainly if we do nothing then these so-called journalists get away with making fools of the American people, and not just the ones who read the Times. The stories in that newspaper are news themselves. Everyone on this forum needs to read the Times as often as possible, and to email the editors should something like we've been seeing from them be printed. If you are as sick of the likes of Wilgoren, Seelye and Connolly as I am, then please help to work toward holding them accountable.

Frequently. Almost daily. I have had 5 letters to the editor printed in just a few months, I have reporters who actually respond to me personally now. I think it is a serious issue that must be addressed. I am afraid it will make little difference.

They have months left to go after Kerry, and many have been afraid of just this issue with the frontloaded primaries. I agree we must all stand up against this, that we agree upon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1632861

I posted this yesterday, and it got few responses.

I found another article that went over the reasons behind why, during the 2000 election, the NYT seemed hellbent on making sure that Bush become president. This writer focuses on the reporters as well as the overall mindset of the editors at the most famous newspaper in the world. This article is pretty long but worth your time to read.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/031208_TheLiarOfRecord.htm

The Liar of Record

By David Podvin

While an endorsement from The Times editorial page is of little significance – even many local candidates endorsed by the paper lose badly – the implicit endorsement of the front page is priceless. In 2000, George W. Bush received that front page endorsement, and he would not be in the White House without it. The themes that had been chosen by Republican strategists – that Bush was “likeable” and Democratic nominee Al Gore was “dishonest” – regularly appeared camouflaged as news on the front page of The Times, and were therefore echoed by the rest of the media.

Bush earned this vital assistance at the start of the campaign when he became the only competitive candidate in either major party who pledged to completely deregulate the broadcasting industry. Such a change in government policy offered a financial bonanza to the media companies, because their profit margins would increase as mergers resulted in less competition. Gore had supported the partial deregulation of the telecommunications industry in 1996, but prior to the 2000 campaign announced that he opposed the changes advocated by the New York Times Company and the other major communications conglomerates. The vice president claimed that further consolidation of media ownership would deprive Americans of much-needed diversity in reporting.

<snip>

Times political writer Katherine Seelye spent 1999 and 2000 campaigning for George W. Bush in the guise of an objective reporter. At the very start of the race, Seelye wrote that Gore was not up to the task: “For all his years of practice for the 2000 election, Mr. Gore seems oddly unprepared for it….” She proceeded to spend the campaign crafting pejorative stories that promoted the GOP smear of Gore.

Seelye constantly portrayed Gore as being dishonest. She went so far as to alter Gore quotes, changing his statement on Love Canal from "That was the one that started it all" into "I was the one that started it all.” She went even further and made things up, such as her infamously false assertion that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.

No one seems to care much about this. I happen to believe it's a serious thing when the "paper of record" lies over and over again about the candidate of the Democratic party and allows the true liar, the Republican candidate, get away with it. I guess others aren't as upset.

It is disheartening. Another one who pulls this stuff is Nedra Pickler with AP.

I don't understand why every single person on this forum who, I assume, doesn't think Bush is really president, and doesn't want to see him elected this time, aren't screaming about the Times from the rooftops. This is serious stuff. We had, during Y2K, the so-called "paper of record" printing what amounted to campaign advertisement for the Repub. candidate on the front page. They disguised it as reporting of course, but it's nothing but lies. "Kit" Seelye did not hide her contempt for Gore, nor her zeal to get Bush into the WH. The article I cited earlier gets into what could be behind the NYT strategy, and personally I think it makes sense.

Please, please, PLEASE, we must all make the effort to not take this lying down this time, to call, to write, to email the editors every single time we see this being done to Kerry in the guise of reporting. No more haircut, no more "butler", no more pb&j sandwich stories. Enough is enough.

Unfortunately, you cannot read what this woman has written if it is more than a couple of weeks old (unless you pay of course) but http://www.dailyhowler.com has extensively examined how utterly corrupt she is. Here a few of their examples showing what a gawdawful bitch she is:



http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012804.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031104.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032204.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032304.shtml