DUH: NEW YORK TIMES ADMITS TO BEING LATE ON ACORN STORY

New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt has admitted that his paper was late reporting on the Acorn story of a couple of young aspiring journalists (Hoyt calls them "conservative activists") exposing what very well could be a systemic problem within an organization that Barack Obama has very close ties to.

Was this a contrite act of admission or a forced admission of omission? I thought the fourth paragraph was particularly telling:

for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

That's what we call damage control boys and girls. The NYT is worried about looking "partisan". Newsflash: YOU ALREADY ARE.

I would really like to give Hoyt and the Times credit for seeing the light but this strikes as nothing more than a response to something that was so blatantly over-the-top when it comes to Acorn, that even the New York Times couldn't spin it or ignore it.

Ah, then comes the ignorance defense.

Some editors told me they were not immediately aware of the Acorn videos on Fox, YouTube and a new conservative Web site called BigGovernment.com. When the Senate voted to cut off all federal funds to Acorn, there was not a word in the newspaper or on its Web site. When the New York City Council froze all its funding for Acorn and the Brooklyn district attorney opened a criminal investigation, there was still nothing.

I guess the term "immediately" is relative but at best, it can usually only be stretched to mean "same day". The problem here is that if the New York Times is "objective" as they claim, why on earth don't they know about the videos?

Apparently, "immediately" in New York Times speak is one week.

Finally, on Sept. 16, nearly a week after the first video was posted, The Times took note of the controversy, under the headline, “Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe.” The article said that conservatives hoped to weaken the Obama administration by attacking its allies and appointees they viewed as leftist. The conservatives thought they had a “winning formula,” the article said, mobilizing people “to dig up dirt,” then trumpeting it on talk radio and television.

Again, damage control and not contrition as Hoyt merely says the political tone "irritated readers". Mr. Hoyt, ever heard of the saying, "where there's smoke, there's fire"?

Anyway, the good news is the extremely biased New York Times was obviously seething about having to write this piece and it was a bit fun watching them have to admit to being inept. The bad news is that it was a "yeah, but" apology without an actual apology.

The fact that Hoyt had to write about it is a victory nonetheless.

Worth reading the ENTIRE PIECE