We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions













 

New York Times’ P.C. Police Patrol “Conservative Beat”
by Doug Schmitz
08 March 2004NYT

The New York Times’ “conservative beat” is nothing more than a ruse for attacking the very foundations of conservatism, as well as the Bush Administration.


[Bill] Keller surely knows that his own newsroom often is perceived as liberal and that a more intense effort to report on conservatives might rid his staff of any misconception that conservatives are all, well, strange or alien.  In any case, good journalism should attempt to get beyond convenient but distorting labels.
-- Terry Eastland, The Weekly Standard, 3/3/04

It’s an election year.  There’s a conservative Republican president up for re-election (thank God!).  And the Left is foaming at the mouth.  Without question, it’s an all-out cultural war and the Left is stuck in virtual meltdown mode -- both on the campaign trail and in the elite media -- with conservatives zeroed in on as the Left’s primary targets.

Take the New York Times (please!), the so-called “newspaper of record,” which has recently taken upon itself to show its alleged “balance” by sanctimoniously creating a “conservative beat,” with liberal Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick on P.C. cop patrol.

But just the fact that the Times condescends to its readers by attempting to find out what makes conservatives tick only further exposes the very liberalism it serially denies. 

It also has eventually exposed its unabashed arrogance at even the very suggestion of employing such a beat assignment.  This is especially true when the very word “conservative” was previously banned from the leftist corridors of the Times.  Even the fact that Times Executive Editor Bill Keller chose to put conservatives under the microscope only cements the leftist ideology that still putrefies the pages of the Times
 
Even David Brooks, the only quasi-conservative at the Times, is highly questionable -- especially given his propensity to jump on both sides of the political fence.  Moreover, the simple fact that the Times even needs its own gatekeeper is very telling.

In fact, Keller, who replaced the equally liberal Howard Raines last July -- when Raines was exposed for coddling known plagiarist Jayson Blair -- still hasn’t changed his leftist template one iota.  As a result, Citizen Raines’ changing of the canard still remains intact -- especially given Keller’s transparent hatred for George W. Bush and the GOP. 

According to The Weekly Standard’s Terry Eastland, Keller offered two explanations of “what this is about.”  The first is that the paper wants to get beyond “the shorthand you use for any interest group” and instead try “to figure out why people believe what they do, how big their constituency is, where it comes from.”
  
The so-called “newspaper of record” -- responsible for honing the grand larceny skills of such journalistic frauds as the recently disgraced Rick Bragg and Charlie LeDuff, Fidel Castro-worshipper Herbert Matthews and Stalin apologist Walter Duranty -- has been completely bent on politicizing everything that comes out of the Bush Administration. 

Every day, the Times turns its leftist screed into a Democratic news release for the imbecilic masses. 

It’s also this same fraudulent rag that is treated as a legitimate news oracle by various wire services, as well as the Dons of the news mafia: Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, CNN and MSNBC.

Now “The Old Gray Lady” wants to continue insulting conservatives by labeling us as some kind of freak of nature, instead of the mainstream segment of the populous that has framed the political landscape of this country for centuries, long before the cancer of liberalism seeped into the dialogue – and into America’s newsrooms.

One recent blaring example of the Times’ liberal extremism is its full-fledged endorsement of John Kerry, a man who’s been a swirling mass of contradictions.  Because the Times’ has openly embraced this latest poster boy for the wounded inner anti-American child, you can bet it dictates how Times reporters cover the Ketchup King. 

For instance, has the Times reported that Kerry was just voted the most liberal senator?  In fact, Kerry’s even more liberal than the outrageously out-of-control Ted Kennedy. 

Has the Times ever exposed Kerry’s treasonous claims that his fellow U.S. soldiers “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies [sic], randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside” of South Vietnam? 

All without Kerry ever citing any compelling evidence to back up his outlandish claims -- and without his media buddies ever challenging or questioning his tenuous statements.  

Once more, while these charges have already been proven false by several Vietnam Veterans, has the Times ever looked beyond its John Kerry cheerleading to expose him as a military fraud?  Are they even capable of doing so, based on their glowing stories and the fact that they only see him as a war hero, instead of a U.S. traitor in pinstripes?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding “No!”

But that’s all right with the Times: Kerry can slander his fellow soldiers and routinely distort the facts because the Times has already endorsed him; it will never actually hold him accountable -- nor will the rest of Kerry’s media allies.

For as many reporters and editors that work for the Times, you’d think they would be just as investigative concerning their fellow liberals, if indeed they truly want to be fair and balanced.  So why doesn’t the Times’ hire a “liberal beat” reporter as well?  It’s because it would be like preaching to the choir – of which they do enough of already.

The truth is, the Times’ “conservative beat” is really nothing more than a ruse for attacking the very foundations of conservatism, as well as the Bush Administration. 

It’s a painfully obvious slam on all that conservatism has come to represent – especially over the past four years: Patriotism, love of country and the desire for a safer America by actually confronting our enemies; traditional Judeo-Christian family values and moral absolutes; honesty, freedom of speech and press, limited government and…George W. Bush, of whom the media elite collectively hates with a passion they find hard to contain.

If Keller thinks his hatchet job of a newspaper is being objective by mocking conservatism under the guise of a special beat, he’s even more deluded than we originally thought. 

Simply having a “conservative beat” will never solve the problem of the Times’ liberal bias: It only exposes it.  The fact that they would even choose to single out the very ones they once communally ostracized – and secretly despise – further underscores this point. 

In essence, the very existence of a “conservative beat” at the Times is not only condescending, it’s extremely insulting, as well as degrading.  It flies in the face of the vast majority of us Americans who hold conservative values.

In the end, it’s nothing more than another foolish attempt on Keller’s part to rid the Times of the liberal leftist label it so proudly wears on its sleeve, as well as its masthead.  In fact, kowtowing to John Kerry by allowing his blatant lies to go unchallenged also proves this point.  Therefore, their utter contempt for conservatives -- from the front page to the op-ed page -- continues to drip like honey with every stroke of their keyboards. 

Likewise, other Times leftist hacks like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Adam Clymer -- according to Keller’s shoddy journalistic standards -- are also apparently free to distort the facts and figures, all in the name of Bush hatred.

Consequently, no special “conservative beat” assignment will ever change the Times -- unless their so-called “public editor” and “ombudsman” are willing to admit -- like ABC News recently did – that liberal bias infects every crack and crevasse of the 152 year-old fossil.

Not surprisingly, upon hearing of “the conservative beat,” Keller actually admitted: “I winced a little when I read that job announcement because it was a little like the New York Times discovers this strange, alien species called conservatives, and that’s not what this is about.”  

But that’s exactly what it’s always been about. 

If the Times were truly concerned about being fair and balanced, the fact that it believes conservatism needs special attention would get them to see the error of its ways.  Unless, of course, they already believe that liberalism reigns supreme instead.

Case in point: In “conservative beat” reporter David D. Kirkpatrick’s January 25 story about the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, he just couldn’t resist taking a poke at the president -- even though Kirkpatrick was specifically hired to present a fair and balanced assessment of conservatism -- in a feeble attempt to debunk the Times’ well-established liberalism:
“To many people, President Bush the tax-cutter, born-again Christian, invader of Iraq – is the face of American conservatism.  But here at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, many of the assembled are questioning whether he is conservative enough…”

Apparently, Kirkpatrick’s idea of fair and balanced is to find Republicans who disagree with Bush, as well as the rest of the leftist media’s favorite Democrats.  And even then, these Republicans’ quotes are usually taken out of context without the slightest retraction.

As Kirkpatrick’s story shows, Keller essentially believes that conservatives deserve to be singled out because, to him, we conservatives are foreigners that don’t have the same freedom of speech that the Left has enjoyed in the mainstream media for over 50 years.  

Most likely, Keller doesn’t even associate with conservatives, as he sits in his cushy office, ultimately deciding what to editorialize and spin in the Democratic Party’s favor.

Despite a October-November 2003 Gallup poll indicating that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative (39 percent as moderate and only 19 percent as liberal), Keller and his rank-and-file media leftists continue to ignore our overwhelming presence and contribution to the political discourse.

Of course, at the same time, liberals like Keller wonder why Fox News is number one; why talk radio audiences are tuning in to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity by the millions; and why Americans are turning off Democratic mouthpieces like Dan Rather, CNN and MSNBC, and surfing cyberspace to read how Matt Drudge, Newsmax.com and WorldNetDaily.com are telling the rest of the story.

The Times eventually has become the ultimate persona of advocacy, albeit, activist journalism (i.e., championing alongside feminists at Augusta Golf Course and cheerleading for the Clinton Administration for eight years, etc.).  They, like the rest of the media elite, have become a caricature of themselves – a clique of sorts.

As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, recently told the New York Observer of the Times’ “conservative beat” epiphany: “Maybe [the Times] figured out that’s where the intellectual energy in this country is coming from.  Maybe they could save time and read us.  Cut out the middleman.”

In creating a mission statement for the “conservative beat,” Keller told the New York Observer: “We haven’t always had a real three-dimensional understanding of where conservative activists are coming from.  Everyone knows this is not the most accessible administration in the history of the Beltway. And it seems to me their reasoning and their strategies are often clouded in secrecy and spin.  And in an election year, that’s likely to be more true than ever.”

Wait a minute.  Didn’t the Times aid and abet Bill and Hillary Clinton in covering up their secrets?  And wasn’t it the Times that provided plenty of spin and damage control when Bill was cheating on Hillary?  Or when he lied under oath to cover up the already substantiated sexual abuse charges filed in the Paula Jones case? 
When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, despite overwhelming evidence that should have booted him out of the White House, the Times was right there through every scandal and felony, defending him and Hillary to the bitter end.

But when it comes to hating Bush, the Times definitely sets completely different standards: It’s open season yet again on conservatives – especially George W. Bush.

In fact, on March 3, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Corrine Brown (D-FL) said regarding the Bush Administration: “Everything goes back to Florida 2000.” 

Well, she’s right about that. 

Everything the Democrats do -- from politicizing the war in Iraq, to criticizing Bush’s every move -- all goes back to Florida 2000.  The Democrats are still bitter that Al Gore failed to steal the election -- and their media allies have gone over the edge with resentment towards our president each and every day to prove it.

Towards the end of his interview with the New York Observer, Keller finally admitted to his leftist bias -- and the underlining motive surrounding the Times’ “conservative beat:”
“The point of it is not to change minds and persuade conservatives that we’re with them.  I don’t want anyone to think that we’re aligned with them ideologically.”

Oh, you don’t have to worry about that, Mr. Keller.  We already know where you and your beloved “newspaper of record” stand ideologically. 

It’s written all over you.

Doug Schmitz is a conse
rvative columnist who regularly contributes to Etherzone.com, BushCountry.org and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org.). © Doug Schmitz.  All Rights Reserved.

Email Doug Schmitz

Send this Article to a Friend