NY Times omitted David Bossie's controversial past in article discussing his group's anti-Clinton film
SUMMARY: Discussing the Citizens United-produced film, Hillary: The Movie, The New York Times identified the group's president, David Bossie, only as "a former Congressional aide and a longtime foe of the Clintons." The Times did not mention that Bossie was reportedly fired as a congressional staffer in 1998 for his role in releasing misleadingly edited transcripts that gave the false impression then-first lady Hillary Clinton had been implicated in wrongdoing.
In a March 5 article about the upcoming Supreme Court case centered on the Citizens United-produced film, Hillary: The Movie, The New York Times identified the group's president, David Bossie, only as "a former Congressional aide and a longtime foe of the Clintons." The Times did not mention that Bossie was reportedly fired as a congressional staffer in 1998 for his role in releasing misleadingly edited transcripts that gave the false impression former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell had implicated then-first lady Hillary Clinton in wrongdoing.
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Bossie was fired in 1998 from his job as chief investigator for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform -- which was investigating alleged Clinton White House campaign finance abuses -- for his role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of Hubbell's prison conversations, comments indicating that Clinton had done nothing wrong. The Washington Times reported on May 7, 1998, that according to Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), then-chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "David Bossie had 'chosen to resign,' although House Speaker Newt Gingrich [R-GA] said Mr. Burton 'fired the one person he should have fired.' " The Washington Times quoted Burton saying, "A mistake was made in not including in the 30 pages of transcripts a couple of comments made by Mr. Hubbell about himself and the first lady. They were relevant, and they should not have been left out." The Washington Post reported in a May 7, 1998, article that then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) told Burton: "I'm embarrassed for you, I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee."
Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert previously reported that Bossie's alleged tactics in investigating the Clintons caused controversy as early as 1992, when "President George H.W. Bush, repudiating Bossie's tactics, filed an FEC complaint against Bossie's group after it produced a TV ad inviting voters to call a hot line to hear (almost certainly doctored) tape-recorded conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers." The Washington Times also reported in its May 7, 1998, article that "Mr. Bossie is no stranger to controversy. ... Republicans said yesterday that they also blamed Mr. Bossie for the notorious melon-shooting, staged re-enactment of the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr."
From the March 5 New York Times article, "Documentary on Clinton Tests Campaign Finance Law":
It has been about a decade since the Supreme Court considered a case arising from the tangle of lawsuits and investigations that once threatened to engulf the administration of President Bill Clinton.
The nation may have moved on, but the court has not. Next month, as Hillary Rodham Clinton settles in as secretary of state, the court will have a look at "Hillary: The Movie," a scathingly hostile look at Mrs. Clinton in the tradition of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The case, to be argued March 24, will require the court to confront a new genre with old roots: the slashing political documentary.
"Hillary: The Movie," released last year in the thick of the Democratic presidential primary season, is a fine example of the genre. There are ripe voice-overs, shadowy re-enactments and spooky mood music. There is, inevitably, Ann Coulter. Asked to say something nice about Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Coulter responds, "Looks good in a pantsuit."
But the film also contains commentary from journalists more in the establishment like Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Jeff Gerth, formerly of The New York Times.
And it presents some straightforward reporting, including interviews with people from the Clinton era in the White House, like Billy R. Dale, who was fired as director of the White House travel office; Gary Aldrich, who wrote a book about his experiences as an F.B.I. agent assigned to the White House; and Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who accused Mr. Clinton of making an unwanted sexual advance.
There are two basic questions before the court: Is the film the sort of "electioneering communication" that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002 says may not be broadcast in certain time windows before elections? And if it is, can the law itself then be squared with the First Amendment?
The documentary was produced by Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group that is a nonprofit corporation. Its president, David Bossie, is a former Congressional aide and a longtime foe of the Clintons.
[...]
Mr. Bossie said the documentary was not meant to take a position in a particular election. Had he been forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama during the primaries, he added, he would have voted for Mrs. Clinton.
Oh what a lovely person Bossie must be, if even the Newt and Dan Burton rebuke him.
The NYT also compares this crackpot film to Michael Moore's films. Again, with the false equivalencies.
Yep. Standard line about how, just like all those right-wing liars, Michael Moore doesn't adhere to the facts either. The fact that they can't point to a single instance of this, when I can point to many instances of outright lies told by ANY conservative commentator is immaterial. Just trust that he's a partisan liar, or risk being told you're drinking the kool-aid.
The word from the boardroom for "saving" the NYT apparently is to "Fox" it up, editorially-wise.
Yeah, that's the ticket. When in doubt, destroy the value of your product. When freedom in under siege, tear up the Constitution, declare martial law and make the joint a police state.
Nail on the head, dude. When profits are under siege, especially.
Primarily the erudite writer of the esteemed Media Matters should have also focused the other Synonyms (i.e. having different forms but same-meaning words) of the word Omission - leaving out, nonexclusion, exclusion, elimination etc., to exactly express the sense he actually meant to convey. Omission, heedless oversight or overlook being minor mistake is neglected and and does not merit any serious attention. This is why fussing over ignorable petty slips is viewed a waste of time and energy. Thus this is a true and genuine omission on the part of the Media Matters' individual who wrote the captioned summary and the story.
What the esteemed The New York Times has done it is different. Eliminating something significantly vital and most relevant is NOT omission, but cool and considered covering-up, screening, secretion and masking touching connivance, complicity and collusion, aimed at confusing and polluting people's minds - and doing this against whom? Digging out the buried baseless issues for eclipsing and damaging the image - plain character assassination - of someone who is committed and busy striving to restore the tarnished planetary prestige of her country and her nation all over the world is simply unimaginable, unnatural and inhuman!
As regards Hillary Clinton, the entire world has witnessed her SPEAKING with her rare ingenuity through LISTENING, and her listening too, is listened to - yet intently and ingratiatingly.
Sterling wishes to Hillary for enviable Accomplishments of her all the sacred struggle, untiring travail and toil not only to restore rather magnify the prestige of her nation and her efforts for global peace, progress, prosperity and well-being of the entire mankind !
Primarily, the erudite writer of the esteemed Media Matters should have also focused the other Synonyms (i.e. having different forms but same-meaning words) like leaving out, exclusion, noneinclusion, elimination etc., to exactly express the sense he actually had meant to convey. Omission, heedless oversight or overlook being minor mistake is neglected and does not merit any serious attention or consideration. This is why fussing over ignorable petty slips is viewed as a waste of time and energy. Thus, this is a true and genuine Omission on the part of the Media Matters' individual who wrote the captioned summary and the story.
What the esteemed The New Yor Times has reportedly done, is different. Eliminating something significantly vital and most relevant is NOT omission, but cool and considered covering-up, screening, secretion and masking, touching connivance, complicity and collusion, aimed at confusing and polluting people's minds - and doing this against whom ? Digging out the dubious and devious issues for eclipsing and damaging the image - plain character assassination of someone who is committed and busy striving to restore the tarnished planetary prestige of his/her country and nation all over the globe is simply unimaginable and unnatural.
As regards Hillary Clinton, the entire world has and is witnessing her SPEAKING with her rare ingenuity, through LISTENING, and her listening too, is listened to - yet intently and ingratiatingly !
Sterling wishes to Hillary for enviable Accomplishments in her sacred struggle, untiring travail and toil, aimed at not only to restore rather magnify the prestige of her nation and also for global peace, progress, prosperity and well-being of the entire mankind !