The New York Times on the Tea Parties -- or NotMike Rappaport

Is there anything more to be said about the MSM's failure to cover the Tea Parties?  On a day with hundreds and hundreds of protests, with significant numbers of people attending, the Times perhaps felt it could not ignore the story entirely.  So what do they do?  If one goes to their web site, the only story that mentions the protests that is visible is about Obama! -- and how he is responding to Tax Day.  It is true that if you go to that story, there is a link to another story about the protests -- but for some reason you can't their directly from the Times ordinary web site.   And that buried story tries very hard to pore water over the protests, talking about low turnout, how other news organizations' decisions to cover them was an example of their bias, how some Tea Protesters were protesting for Gay Marriage, etc. 

I am tempted to wonder how a New York Times reporter (or a reader who believes the Times is a good newspaper) can look at himself in the mirror.  Doesn't he realize what a scam the whole thing is?  I say tempted, because I know the answer -- No.  I have lived much of my life around liberals, and I realize they would not view it that way.  First, they would not even wonder very much about where the stories are on the Tea Parties.  And if they did, any surprise would be combined with happiness about how the Tea Parties were not getting coverage, since, after all, they are disreputable.  

In fact, assuming that most of the readers of the Times are liberal, the Times would get far more negative feedback if they ran the stories prominently and fairly.  Liberals would complain that they were being taken in by corporations and reactionaries. 

The bottom line, of course, is that the New York Times is a liberal newspaper.  No surprise there.  The problem is that some people still try to claim, or at least act like, the Times is providing "All the News that Fit to Print." 

Now, I should say that none of this should be taken too harshly.  These reactions of liberals to hearing news of their opponents getting organized are the ordinary reactions of humans.  Conservatives and libertarians would act the same way in the same circumstances.  (The difference is that these groups don't have dominance in the news media, and so they are rarely in the same circumstances.)

Put differently, I don't assume Fox News is an objective or impartial reporter of the news.  But there are far fewer people who assume that Fox News is objective than assume the New York Times is.  (At least far fewer people in my world.)

Update: As one of the commenters noted, the Times has now put the Tea Parties Story on the front page of their Web Site.  I suppose that is the minimal coverage they can get away with.  As to whether the protest is getting sufficient attention from the press in particular cities, I cannot say.  But the article points out that rallies in 750 cities are expected.  There are two in San Diego, one about 10 minutes from my house.  If even 1/10th of that number were planned on the left, we would never hear the end of it. '

Further Update: To help people understand how much the Times buried the Tea Parties Story, let me know that in the written paper, they placed it on page A16.  Enough said!

Comments

[Russell L. Carter]

Well a lot of us leftists are simply amazed that the denotation 'tea bagging' was not dumped when it became generally known what the younger generation thinks it describes. So from the beginning we're embarrassed for you... And then, for instance, in the previous set of tea bagging pictures you so kindly provided there was a very prominent picture of a sign with the text: "We love waterboarding". So evidently anti-tax == pro-torture. Along with the examples you cite yourself, you've got a problem with message dilution, it might be said, in the most innocuous way.

BTW, I sent off my $14,000 check today without any angst. Oh, how terrible that is. Notably I was still a bit surprised at the small fraction of the gross income the total tax (not $14,000) turned out to be.

[David T.]

I can understand "liberal" in the sense of putting a liberal slant on things--reporting about the tea parties but highlighting disreputable people in the crowd and making adolescent reference to sexual innuendos and so on. That's been going on forever. But the idea of simply not reporting on something at all is surely new. Or were there large-scale right-of-center demonstrations back in the eighties that we just never heard about because there was no internet?

[Triumvirate]

How about inflating crowd estimates like Neil Cavuto did today? Excuse me for highlighting a disreputable person/network.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001168/

[bailey]

There's a story on the front page of the Times now.

I live in Washington, and it seems to me that today's protest got a disproportionate amount of coverage for its size. We have protests and other mass gatherings here all of the time and most of them don't get any coverage, or at most a picture in the paper and a small human interest-type story. Unless they cause massive disruption like the IMF/World Bank protests.

Today, there is a story on the Post's Web site and there's been some local news coverage. This is despite the fact that the protest didn't close any streets, didn't disrupt traffic, didn't affect Metro service and from the pictures I saw didn't even fill up Lafayette Square (one city block). There were more people in the streets -- spontaneously! -- to celebrate Obama's victory on election night.

[Russell L. Carter]

"Finally, as to the left's view of the Tea Parties, take a look at Mr. Russel L. Carter's comment; It is as if he is trying to prove my point."

The point being that the subject matter is an embarrassment (at best!) to most MSM readers...

Sometimes in politically charged circumstances it's a bother to remember that the dead-tree part of the MSM is being destroyed by intense competition from much more agile low overhead information sources, like "The Right Coast" for instance. Now why do I infest chez Right Coast? Because there are so few of you. And yall know how to manipulate the English language.

Work it out.

[Mike Rappaport]

Mr. Carter quotes from a portion of my update that I deleted about three minutes after I included it (and before seeing Mr. Carter's response). The reason I deleted it is that I think that my response was really not called for. So I am sorry that you saw it Mr. Carter. You either got unlucky or check the Right Coast often.

[Marek]

"[T]he Times has now put the Tea Parties Story on the front page of their Web Site. I suppose that is the minimal coverage they can get away with."

Professor, what more do you want than the front page? Should the NYT do what Fox News did and go to wall-to-wall coverage of tea parties, as if that's the only important news that needs covering today?

I note that the current homepage of the Wall Street Journal, a conservative newspaper, does not have a dedicated Tea Party story. The only mention of "tea party" is under a story titled "Obama Calls for Simpler Tax Code."

This blog is far too critical of the "MSM," IMO.

[Mike Rappaport]

Marek, you may have been mislead by careless language. I don't mean it is on the front page of their Newspaper. That would be something. It is on the front page of their web site, along with virtually every other story from today. Earlier in the day, you could not get to the story from looking at their web site. You had to read an Obama story first to get to the tea party story.

Plus, the Wall Street Journal is not a conservative newspaper. Its editorial page is conservative; its news section is liberal.

[Jonathan]

Hey, I take what I know about the significance of the tea parties from MSNBC, the network at the top of the leftist media pyramid. MSNBC has devoted a great deal of time to denigrating and ridiculing the tea-party demonstrations and the people who participate in them. The tea parties are, it seems, frivolous events orchestrated by a small cabal of right-wing cranks, racists, anti-government militia/terrorist types, the Republican leadership and Fox News. Yes, these phony grass-roots events are truly ridiculous and also somehow at the same time deserve extensive negative coverage. I infer that the political Left sees the tea party movement as a significant threat to its agenda.

Who said MSNBC wasn't useful?

[ddbb]

In contrast to the reports of the left wing protests during the Bush presidency, I don't recall hearing about violence, vandalism or general weirdness. I attended the Dallas event, and the other attendees were people who work for a living, rather than professional demonstrators. This also explains why it was held in the evening, since most people who are interested in the subject matter work during the day and had to finish filing their taxes. There were a lot of families there. I guess this does not make for good photo ops.

In addition, after 8 years of staged demonstrations by ANSWER, Code Pink and the various Soros-related groups, I don't think the left understands that there can be an unaffiliated grass roots event organized by people whose job does not involve professional agitating.