Blogger catches NY T**** red-handed re-writing story on IRS

The NY T**** has always supported Democrats, and will cheerfully, shamelessly slant news stories to minimize any damage to Democrats.

Ah, I can hear my liberal friends and relatives whining that "You wingnut Rethuglicans just make this shit up, cuz you're all paranoid, bitter clingers," or some such crap.  So for any of you who think this is all just a figment of conservatives' imagination, read on:  Because blogger Brian Cates ("Draw and strike") has caught 'em red-handed.

I encourage you to click on the link, because Brian has absolutely nailed the bastards--caught 'em in a way they can't deny or wave away with any of their myriad tired excuses (like, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is").

But if you're in a hurry, here's the gist:  After former IRS chief Miller's brazen barrage of lies at last Friday's congressional hearings on the targeting of conservative groups, junior Times reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote the story like this:




Notice the headline: "Treasury knew of IRS inquiry in 2012, official says."  Then look at the lede 'graf, which skillfully summarizes the story in a single sentence.  The first sentence.  Which ends, "...disclosing for the first time...that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign...."

Wow!  Guess the vaunted "layers of editors" at the Times must have all been getting back from three-martini lunches or something, because there's no other way to explain how this got past every single one of 'em.

And apparently the young reporter, Weisman, hadn't read the "real" NYT style guide, which would have told him a) we don't put anything remotely critical of Democrats in the lede 'graf; and b) we never, ever criticize Obama.

Oooooh, now what do we do to recover?

Answer:  Send a more politically-reliable reporter to re-write the thing.  Oh, and re-write the headline too.

Enter Jeremy Peters.  And here's the result:






Notice the headline has been changed from "Treasury knew of IRS inquiry in 2012" to "Republicans expand IRS inquiry, with eye on White House."

Ah, yes, that does a much better job of alerting the reader to the real story:  It's not about a high official in the Obama administration who knew before the election that the IRS's inspector-general was investigating why the IRS seemed to be targeting conservative organizations.  Instead it's about Republicans trying to nick our Dear Leader with a presumably manufactured "scandal."

And note the lede 'graf: 

Congressional Republicans, not resting with the [IRS] scandal, are moving to broaden the matter to an array of tax malfeasances and "intimidation tactics" they hope will ensnare the White House.

Ah, that's *so* much better.  Takes the reader's focus off any possible illegal act by the Obama administration and puts it right where it belongs:  On those canny Rethuglicans, who've taken a trivial mistake by a couple of over-zealous, low-level employees in a single IRS office and tried their best to link it to the White House!  BAD Rethuglicans!

Whew!  What a relief that thanks to the fast reactions of editors at the T****, the early story that might have reflected badly on Obama has now been re-written to defend Him against the scandal-mongering Rethugs.

Lord, thank you for the Internet, which occasionally makes it possible for regular citizens to catch the opinion-shapers in the Press lying and air-brushing stories to protect their Democrat boyfriends.

Oh, and to the NYT editors who re-wrote Weisman's "real journalism" story:  Fuck you.  May you live to see the consequences of your prostitution.