The NY Times Discovers Fox News

It took them awhile but now maybe they'll learn something (from Don Surber):

The New York Times ignored the ACORN story for more than a year now, going back to at least July 2008 when it decided not to pursue this tip: “The real story to all this is how these myriad entities allow them to shuffle money around so much that no one really knows what’s getting spent on what — and for the charities like the housing orgs, that’s a problem. Charitable money cannot be spent on political activites. It’s a big no-no that can cost charitable organizations their exemptions.”

So what is its excuse now?

No one watches Fox News or listens to talk radio. I mean only 47% of the country failed to vote for Barack Obama, right?

But Clark Hoyt, the newspaper’s public editor said that will change.

“Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was ’slow off the mark,’ and blamed ‘insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.’ She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person ‘a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere’.

“Despite what the critics think, Abramson said the problem was not liberal bias,” Hoyt wrote.

I think this is the first time I've ever had the "Fox News" and "New York Times" labels on the same post.

While Abramson may claim there was no liberal bias involved, it's clear they didn't consider anything going on with ACORN to be a story worth covering. After all, doesn't ACORN "help" people?

They're also big supporters of every lefty issue the Times supports, and friends of my friends are also my friends. You can call it "bias", or just "blindness".