BulgeGate is Back: Did the Papers Kill the Story
Posted on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 11:05:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Via Buzzflash: Reporter Dave Lindorff, writing in FAIR, says that the New York Times killed a story in the days before the election that could have changed the outcome of the election. The issue: Did President Bush cheat during the debate by wearing an electronic cueing device.
Could the last-minute decision by the New York Times not to run the Nelson photos story, or the decision by the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times not even to pursue it, have affected the outcome of the recent presidential race? There is no question that if such a story had run in any one of those major venues, instead of just in two online publications, Bulgegate would have been a major issue in the waning days of the campaign.
Given that exit polls show many who voted for Bush around the country listed "moral values" as a big factor in their decision, it seems reasonable to assume that at least some would have changed their minds had evidence been presented in the nation’s biggest and most influential newspapers that Bush had been dishonest. "Cheating on a debate should affect an election," says Bagdikian. "The decision not to let people know this story could affect the history of the United States."
New York Times public editor Daniel Okrant confirms Lindhorff's allegations about the Times killing the story:
As Extra! went to press, New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent posted a message on his website (12/21/04) confirming that his paper had, in fact, killed a story about the device under George W. Bush’s suit. Here is the text of Okrent’s message:
President Bush and the Jacket Bulge
Online discussion of the famous bulge on President Bush’s back at the first presidential debate hasn’t stopped. One reporter (Dave Lindorff of Salon.com) asserted that the Times had a story in the works about a NASA scientist who had done a careful study of the graphic evidence, but it was spiked by the paper’s top editors sometime during the week before the election. Many readers have asked me for an explanation.
I checked into Lindorff’s assertion, and he’s right. The story’s life at the Times began with a tip from the NASA scientist, Robert Nelson, to reporter Bill Broad. Soon his colleagues on the science desk, John Schwartz and Andrew Revkin, took on the bulk of the reporting. Science editor Laura Chang presented the story at the daily news meeting but, like many other stories, it did not make the cut. According to executive editor Bill Keller, "In the end, nobody, including the scientist who brought it up, could take the story beyond speculation. In the crush of election-finale stories, it died a quiet, unlamented death."
Lindorff also is critical of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times for not pursuing the story.
| < Radack on Chertoff | Sen. Dodd's Passionate Opposition to Alberto Gonzales > |
