I’m not here to glorify or defend The New York Times, but doesn’t it have an editor-in-chief (more or less)? An incident that occurred this morning makes you wonder. As reported by Nice Deb, a story that ran in the Times this morning seemed critical of Barack Obama’s visit to Dover Air Force Base in the wee hours of the morning presumably to pay his respects to the fallen servicemen being brought back to the States. The story, by Jeff Zeleny, originally contained the following paragraph:
The images and the sentiment of the president’s five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste. [Emphasis added]
Curiously and inexplicably, the same paragraph was edited later on to read as follows:
The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.
The mention of Obama’s intention to convey was suddenly gone.
What gives? That’s what I want to know. Is the White House now editing copy by even friendly publications when it is deemed unfavorable? The Times is certainly mum about the change.
Speculation today has been running high that the visit to Dover was yet another staged Obama event, complete with news cameras to record his solemn salute. Some rightwing commentators have attempted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, claiming no one could be that base and callous. How charitable of them. Others have ascribed motives ranging from his wanting to look concerned, so the public will understand his waffling over his general’s request for more troops, down to Obama’s setting the stage for a pullout.
I am not going to add my own speculation, but I will tell you that I would put nothing past this guy. For someone so hell-bent on changing the tenor of politics in this country, he has acted consistently in a fashion that encourages cynicism. If he wants the respect and trust of the American electorate — and not just the part that voted for him — he’s going to have to earn it big time, and not through another crummy speech.
Comments 5
I’m not seeing that editing as a likely White House move. It seems to me that, if anything, they would want the NYT audience of anti-military liberals to read the first quote which winks to indicate Barry doesn’t really honor the troops rather than the second one which forthrightly identifies him as commander in chief and includes “poignancy,” thus hinting he might have had a real tear in his eye not caused by a grain of sand kicked up in that bunker on the 15th hole before he had to interrupt his game and change into the damned monkey suit.
Plus, the simplest explanation it that the first paragraph is clumsily written. It attributes sentiment to the trip rather than to the president. I think Rocco Landesman wrote it.
As to giving the president the benefit of the doubt on the reason for his trip, that’s just adherence to the fiction that any politician can be trusted to care about anyone else anywhere, anytime, anyhow, on any issue. A Cincinnatus ain’t born every day.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
@ Sully: Sully, you raise some interesting points. As to how the WH would like BO’s appearance to be seen, what you say is true, but you’re forgetting this guy’s immense ego. He wants to be seen as de Savior–hence always in a positive light.
As to the writing, I don’t see it as that much of a problem, though I did get a kick out of the Landesman tie-in.
Finally, you’re right, no pol can be trusted, but some, I believe, are less trustworthy when others. Should you ever be invited to the WH to shake this guy’s hand, check for your wallet afterwards.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Showing up with the WH press corp and getting turned down by 15 of the 16 families to be photographed with him reminds me of Clinton’s normandy stone and “picking up” a gravestone flag.
I initially thought it was appropriate to go and we should cut him some slack. The more I read the more I feel giving him the benefit of the doubt was a mistake. He has no shame. GWB was legend for spending time with families of fallen soldiers and never with a camera in tow – and the very least attempting to minimize the publicity of what he was doing. For all his faults, I think he was an honorable man for what passes for the definition in modern politics.
Obama is a ….. I don’t know how much lower you can stoop.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Why did the media need to be there? I don’t think most of the military families objected to receiving the president’s condolences so much as to having their loss made into a media event.
The TV broadcast area of LA is one in which you see the families and friends of murder victims, in the hours and days after an event that has shattered their lives, on a near-constant basis. I don’t think I’ll ever become inured to the inhuman rudeness of reporters going after these poor people with cameras and microphones, at such a terrible time. I have to look away, change the channel, go do something else.
It strikes me in a similar way to think of ordinary American families being beset by cameras and microphones because their loved ones died in uniform. We are not, in fact, all entitled by the fact of uniformed service to observe their grief. There are funerals and graveside ceremonies to which they can invite the members of the community who care about them; but greeting their soldiers’ bodies at an air base is an event they should be left to deal with in dignity and peace.
The president certainly has a role in that event, if he wants one. But the media don’t.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
@ J.E. Dyer:
I absolutely agree. The media has zero right to intrude on the grief of military families. And no more right to intrude on the families of murder victims. The press should have to follow rules re keeping a reasonable distance from the house, service, direct travel route, etc. similar to those that govern demonstrations. If the family want to go to them that’s one thing, but the shoving of cameras in the faces of innocent folks is ridiculous.
Were I on a jury in a case involving assault by a put upon family member on a cameraman doing something along that line getting a guilty vote would be very difficult if not impossible.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[...] Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions [...]