Free Markets, Free People

“It was a game changer”

Thus was the reason, according to former ACORN worker, Anita Moncrief, why the New York Times killed a story about the connections between the activist group and the Obama campaign.

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”


Obama and ACORN

Obama and ACORN

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the [Obama] campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

ACORN does not exactly deny Moncrief’s allegations, but instead waives her off as a “disgruntled” employee:

“None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility and we’re not going to spend our time on it,” said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director in a statement issued last week.

And the NYT isn’t saying much either:

Ms. Mathis [the New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications] wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”

Strangely, neither the Obama administration nor anyone connected with his campaign comments on the story. Of course, if the allegations regarding handing over the donor list are true, then there may campaign finance law violations to worry about, so they probably wouldn’t say much anyway.

I have to admit, this is almost a dog-bites-man story. There can’t be too many people who will seriously contend that the NYT isn’t a liberal newspaper. And it wasn’t any big secret during the run-up to the election that the MSM was in the tank for Obama. But I do wonder if many people realize the lengths that the MSM would go to in order to see their boy to the finish line. Hillary supporters got the message pretty loud and clear during the primaries, and Palin’s backers can cite chapter and verse on how the MSM dragged her and her family through the gutter. Some people might even remember that story suggesting that McCain had an affair with lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman (for which she sued the NYT and settled out of court).

Yet, how many people realize that the de facto leader of the MSM would spike a story that’s not just critical of their chosen candidate, but that implicates him in illegal activity with a notorious election law violator? Seems like that would be news fit to print. Just not in the NYT apparently.

By the way, keep this story in mind as plans continue to unfold regarding the federal government subsidizing newspapers. If the NYT was willing to spike a story just to help its chosen one, what will they do when that chosen one is paying the bills?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

17 Responses to “It was a game changer”

  • dog bites man

  • OMG….I missed her testimony. I’m going over to the CSPAN site right now.

  • From “Fake But Accurate” to “Accurate But Inconvenient.”
    How many people did they lay off today?

  • This suprises someone how?

  • I’m not sure about the “game changer” aspect of anything in relation to Obama.  He could have been caught in bed with ten dead prostitutes and ten live boys and it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference to the nitwits that voted for him.

    • I agree.  It isn’t so much that TAO’s loopy supporters bought his snake oil: they were DETERMINED to do it.

      And can’t you see the excuses?  “Bush did it too!”

  • I see that many press outlets are considerately blacking out or downplaying Biden’s coke-snortin’ daughter.

    Normally I’d agree, but if it was one of the Bush twins, I’m sure things would be a bit different.

    So diamond Joe needs to send his party-girl tramp of a daughter to Afghanistan, the war his administration supports.

    • Easy on throwing around unsupported allegations there, shark.

      • MichaelW –

        If you want to remove the post, feel free to do so.  I wouldn’t want my urge to be uncharitable to open the blog up to any sort of trouble.


    • Normally I’d agree, but if it was one of the Bush twins, I’m sure things would be a bit different.

      Of course it would.  Remember when a bartender called 911 because the Bush twins were using fake IDs to get drinks?

  • . . . . that implicates him in illegal activity . . . .

    I’m in full sympathy with you, McQ, over the NYT’s lack of objective reporting that may have damaged Obama’s Presidential bid. That said, what exactly is or was illegal about turning over the maxed-out donor list to Get Out The Vote?

  • Opps, sorry. That previous post should have been to Michael, not McQ.

    • The McCain-Feingold Act (BCRA) prohibits coordination between campaigns and outside groups unless the restrictions on hard money contributions are observed.  Handing over the “maxed-out” donor list would necessarily violate that law.

      • I don’t believe anything in the BCRA prohibits coordination between campaigns and non-partisan outside groups such as Get Out The Vote so long as any funds raised by the non-partisan outside group aren’t used in support of a candidate or party. Of course, I could be proven wrong and YMMV.

        • I guess a lot would depend on exactly how you define “non-partisan”.  Does it really mean anything to “claim” to be “non-partisan”?  In that case, I am as “non-partisan” as ACORN or Get Out The Vote.