President Obama’s Dragnet
nytimes.com
President Obama’s Dragnet
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#2It should be mentioned that it was written by the Editorial Board of NYT.
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#3It should be mentioned that it was written by the Editorial Board of NYT.
I'd 's/mentioned/emphasized/' . The first 1.7 paragraphs read like they're straight out of the WSJ.
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#4Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#5Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd 's/mentioned/emphasized/' . The first 1.7 paragraphs read like they're straight out of the WSJ.
What's the significance of this?
The NYT tends to criticize Obama less harshly than the WSJ. Of course, the exact opposite was true during the Bush years.
No American paper commenting on the more interesting issue of why it took a UK news organization to uncover this.
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd 's/mentioned/emphasized/' . The first 1.7 paragraphs read like they're straight out of the WSJ.
What's the significance of this?
The New York Times is known for being incredibly loath to criticize Obama, particularly on issues related to due process, wiretapping, the PATRIOT act, the "state secrets" doctrine, drone assasinations, etc[0].
The fact that Obama has been doing this isn't news; the fact that even the NYT is coming out and criticizing him for it is.
The Wall Street Journal has historically been the polar opposite, from an editorial perspective.
(Also, the other significance is that this is the editorial team, whose purpose is to opine - this is not the news team, which are supposed to attempt to remain 'objective').
[0] Basically, a large part of the foreign policy for which Bush was criticized during his presidency and which Obama has doubled down on.
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd 's/mentioned/emphasized/' . The first 1.7 paragraphs read like they're straight out of the WSJ.
What's the significance of this?
> What's the significance of this?
I cannot remember (I'm 49yo) the NYT ever going from endorsing a candidate [1] to "The administration has now lost all credibility." That's quite a fall politically.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obam...
Edit: I have to agree with them, but I hold out hope that this will cause several high-profile firings in the administration.
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd 's/mentioned/emphasized/' . The first 1.7 paragraphs read like they're straight out of the WSJ.
What's the significance of this?
If the NYT publicly states that his administration "has now lost all credibility" it should be significant. They are the flagship liberal / progressive newspaper in the country. Their blunt outrage signifies an important element of his party's support is rebelling against the President's actions.
However he will probably be able to just shrug it off. US citizens have become too fat and lazy to give a damn about anything but tax cuts and their entitlement. They've forgotten that this is still a world where you have to fight for what is important.
Re: President Obama’s Dragnet
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the significance of this?
The New York Times is known for being incredibly loath to criticize Obama, particularly on issues related to due process, wiretapping, the PATRIOT act, the "state secrets" doctrine, drone assasinations, etc[0]. The fact that Obama has been doing this isn't news; the fact that even the NYT is coming out and criticizing him for it is. The Wall Street Journal has historically been the polar opposite, from an editorial p…
Criticizing a president for wire-tapping puts the NYT in an incredibly awkward spot, as they forced their reporter to shelve the Bush wire-tapping scoop until after the 2004 election, back when privacy violations were still something people could get up in arms about.