RUSH: I think the funniest joke over the weekend has to be that editorial by the New York Times public editor. The guy's name is Arthur Brisbane. The piece is entitled, "A Hard Look at the President." Here we are four years, for all intents and purposes... (interruption) Well, yeah, if you count 2008. Four years into coverage of Barack Obama as either the president or presidential candidate by the New York Times, and they promise -- in a piece on April 21st "A Hard Look at the President." And get this. Snerdley, listen to this. Gotta know this 'cause people might call you about it. The last line of the New York Times piece... Which, it's an editorial from the public editor.
The last line ends with: "Readers deserve to know who is the real Barack Obama, and the Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way." That is the funniest joke of the weekend! Four years into it, the New York Times is promising us that "readers deserve to know the real Barack Obama, and the Times needs to show that it can address that question in a hard-nosed way." Now, this is just flat-out hilarious. Unless you think how much the rest of the news media depends upon the New York Times to lead the way in coverage. Will the rest of the news media now just say, "Okay, well, I guess we have to show people who the real Obama is."
Here we are more than three-and-a-half years into his presidency, more than five trillion dollars into more debt, and "the paper of record" decides that its readers deserve to know who is the real Barack Obama. Now, the question is: Why does the New York Times need to show who Obama is now? Where is the pressure coming from to do this? Why now? Well, I think largely people are getting their news from other places, and the things that these other places are reporting and saying about Obama doesn't jibe with what the New York Times wants people to know about Obama. That would be my guess. So the New York Times has decided, with all this other information out there about Obama, they have to come out with their own version of it to try to guard against the truth being reported about Obama.
RUSH: The New York Times promising "a hard look."
"Readers deserve to know: Who is the real Barack Obama? And The Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way." Now, this editorial in the New York Times begins by the public editor Arthur Brisbane admitting that there's been a lot more negative coverage of Romney than Obama in the New York Times, but that's just the way things go in primaries. But he says, "Now, though, the general election season is on, and The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?" Is that not laughable?
Here is "the newspaper of record," the newspaper, the greatest newspaper in the world by reputation, deciding after four years, and they're gonna find out "Who is the real Barack Obama?" You know, I'm reminded of this sound bite we play often, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw, on October 30th of 2008, about a week before the election. These two guys were sitting around saying (paraphrased), "I don't know what books he's read! I don't know who primary influences are. We really don't know what his foreign policy is. Who is this man? We don't really know who this man is! I couldn't tell you, Tom."
"Nor I, Charlie! We don't know." They had two primo journalists a week before the election proudly admitting they had no idea who it was they were supporting. They had full intentions of voting for the guy and they're admitting they don't know who he is. Here's the New York Times four years later promising to find out who he is. And then after they find out who he is, they're gonna tell us. And after telling us then they assure us that they're gonna be honest. And they're gonna be brave. "The Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way."
"According to a study by the media scholars ... The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors..." Yeah, we wouldn'ta noticed that if they hadn't told us, right? They coulda added the last two and a half years as well. He says, "The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers -- these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now." Now? So the New York Times is four years late and $5 trillion short as they promise and endeavor to tell us who Barack Obama really is.