More, 5/6/12, "NY Times Goes Hunting for Racist 'Ultraconservatives' in Ohio Who Won't Support Obama," NewsBusters, Tim Graham
"This is a scurrilous article! Where's the evidence? It's just creepy, New York aversion to the fly-over people.
While Mr. Obama will always be known to the history books as the country’s first black president, his mixed-race heritage has only rarely surfaced in visible and explicit ways amid the tumult of a deep recession, two wars and shifting political currents.Exactly. It's remarkable, the absence of racism. But the NYT is just so eager to rake some up anyway.
- The Obama campaign aggressively monitors any racial remarks made against the president, but officials rarely openly discuss Mr. Obama’s race....
Researchers have long struggled to quantify racial bias in electoral politics, in part because of the reliance on surveys, a forum in which respondents rarely admit to prejudice. In 50 interviews in this county over three days last week, 5 people raised race directly as a reason they would not vote for Mr. Obama. In those conversations, voters were not asked specifically about race, but about their views on the candidates generally. Those who raised the issue did so of their own accord.I'd like to see the text of these interviews. They give us some quotes that are not fairly characterized as someone saying she wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race, but statements of belief that other people voted out of enthusiasm for having a black President
“I’ll just come right out and say it: he was elected because of his race,” said Sara Reese, a bank employee who said she voted for Ralph Nader in 2008, even though she usually votes Democrat....
“He was like, ‘Here I am, I’m black and I’m proud,’ ” said Lesia Felsoci, a bank employee drinking a beer in an Applebee’s. “To me, he didn’t have a platform. Black people voted him in, that’s why he won. It was black ignorance.”Drinking a beer in an Applebee’s... oh, the horror!
But the main quarrels Democratic voters here have with Mr. Obama have nothing to do with race....Exactly. How disappointing for the enlightened elite in New York City!"
============================
Ed. note: The New York Times is the biggest cancer on the planet. No one in their right mind would believe a word the NY Times said after their vicious editing of the George Zimmerman 911 transcript, or their blatant misreporting of the deadly 1991 Crown Heights riots to incite hatred and violence between blacks and Jews. And here with their "survey" that found 5 racists "who brought the subject up on their own." A NY Times reporter during the Crown Heights riots finally spoke up about what the Times did:
How the NY Times viciously misreported the 1991 Crown Heights riots:
8/9/11, "Telling It Like It Wasn’t," Jewish Week, Ari Goldman
"Yet, when I picked up the paper, the article I read was not the story I had reported. I saw headlines that described the riots in terms solely of race. “Two Deaths Ignite Racial Clash in Tense Brooklyn Neighborhood,” the Times headline said. And, worse, I read an opening paragraph, what journalists call a “lead,” that was simply untrue:
“Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday.”
In all my reporting during the riots I never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks. But the Times was dedicated to this version of events: blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions. To show Jewish culpability in the riots, the paper even ran a picture — laughable even at the time — of a chasidic man brandishing an open umbrella before a police officer in riot gear. The caption read: “A police officer scuffling with a Hasidic man yesterday on President Street.”
I was outraged but I held my tongue. I was a loyal Times employee and deferred to my editors. I figured that other reporters on the streets were witnessing parts of the story I was not seeing."...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment