Clark Hoyt vs. Bill O’Reilly…
The New York Times’ Clark Hoyt responds (and then some) to charges leveled by Bill O’Reilly regarding the Times coverage (or lack thereof in O’Reilly’s opinion) of “ties” between Acorn and the Obama campaign…
O’Reilly picked up the allegation two weeks later. During his April 1 broadcast, he said The Times had been investigating links between Acorn and the Obama campaign, then played this excerpt of a voicemail: “Hi, Anita. It’s Stephanie. I have just been asked by my bosses to stand down. They want me to hold off on coming to Washington. Sorry, I take my orders from higher up – ah, sometimes. Anyway, um, I’m sorry about this and we’ll still be in touch. Take care. And let me know if there is anything I can do to help you. Take care. Bye-bye.”
In the context of an accusation that The Times was killing the story, presumably because it would hurt Obama, this message fit perfectly. And O’Reilly said immediately after playing the tape, “Now, if The Times killed that investigation, it’s a violation of every journalistic ethic and may have even influenced the election.”
But O’Reilly had cut from Strom’s message her reason for canceling her trip to Washington to meet with Moncrief about the Obama campaign, Acorn and an Acorn affiliate called Project Vote. Right after “stand down,” Strom had said, “ We’re running a story tonight for tomorrow that, ah, pretty well lays out the partisanship problems that Project Vote may have, ah, based on a report that I got. So, ah, they think that going to do – that’s going to be the story about the partisanship issue, and so they want me to hold off on coming to Washington.”
Putting those words back in paints quite a different picture. David Tabacoff, senior executive producer for The O’Reilly Factor, told me in e-mail that the phone call “was simply edited for time.” That would be like saving space by boiling Dick Cheney’s recent speech on national security to a single quote: “President Obama makes wise decisions.” Cheney actually did say that, but tearing it from the rest of what he said would completely distort his meaning.
Advertisement
May 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm
This was a very disingenuous defense from Mr Hoyt. He claimed in his original piece that O’Reilly never told his viewers about the story the Times DID run, citing the fact that the part of the tape that mentioned it wasn’t aired. However, O’Reilly specifically told his audience about that Times story right after he played the cut from the tape–so he DID tell his viewers. Hoyt’s original column was shady at best, and he never really addresses that bit of dishonesty in his reply.
May 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Wow… What was this guy thinking?!
Not only is his defense pretty thin (at best), he’s returned the spotlight back to the NYTimes killing a story that could have hurt Obama. Why would they do that?!
They know they were in the wrong (or at the very least, not far enough in the right), and should have left well enough alone when O’Reilly talked about it, and then moved on. By bringing it up again, they’re only going to force O’Reilly to talk about it some more!
Bad strategery, if you ask me.
May 30, 2009 at 11:59 pm
The NYT must be taking a page from KO by attacking O’Reilly in some misguided belief that that’ll somehow help their circulation grow again…well it’s hasn’t worked for KO in his ratings so I doubt it’ll help the Times sell more papers.
May 31, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“Edited for time.” Yup, that makes sense. He’s got an hour long show every night had they needed the 20 seconds for something more important.
I edit for a living and would never use that limp excuse on something like that. In a legitimate newsroom I’d get my ass fired without probation.
May 31, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Come on tripton, be serious. If you’re really an editor (of what, who knows), you’d know that this is what you do. The section edited out doesn’t really change O’Reilly’s message that the Times killed the story. At best, it shows that the Times “changed” or “deflected” the story to something else… but it proves nothing.
It’s nonsense and you know it.