[starik36]

Your post is nonsense. NYT has endorsed a democrat for every election in recent history. Why would they "protect" GW's chances at reelection???

Endorsements

    2024: Kamala Harris (Democrat)
    2020: Joe Biden (Democrat)   
    2016: Hillary Clinton (Democrat)   
    2012: Barack Obama (Democrat)   
    2008: Barack Obama (Democrat)   
    2004: John Kerry (Democrat)   
    2000: Al Gore (Democrat)   
    1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat)   
    1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat)

[luma]

I take them at their actions, not their empty words. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

> In an interview in 2013, [NYT Executive Editor] Keller said that the newspaper had decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration

Bush told them not to run the story while he was running for president. As always, the boot was presented and they licked it clean.

[darkhorse222]

Your excerpt is a bit misleading, here's a wider cut:

When it published the article, the newspaper reported that it had delayed publication because the George W. Bush White House had argued that publication "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." The timing of the New York Times story prompted debate, and the Los Angeles Times noted that "critics on the left wondering why the paper waited so long to publish the story and those on the right wondering why it was published at all." Times executive editor Bill Keller denied that the timing of the reporting was linked to any external event, such as the December 2005 Iraqi parliamentary election, the impending publication of Risen's book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, or the then-ongoing debate on Patriot Act reauthorization. Risen and Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2006.

In an interview in 2013, Keller said that the newspaper had decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration and being advised not to do so by The New York Times Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman, and that "Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune."

[rsingel]

And the NYT only published when Risen's book was going to come out, meaning the reporting that they paid for was going to get published in a book and embarrass the hell out of them

[luma]

The question of facts are clear and admitted by their executive leadership. That the Bush admin gave them a bunch of scary stories isn't relevant - they knew the NSA was illegally spying on all Americans and, under pressure from an administration running for re-election, made the conscious decision to keep Americans uninformed of what power was doing to them.

That's the old grey lady, same as she ever was. Take a gander at the rest of that Wiki page, this isn't an isolated incident.

[ranger_danger]

A newspaper that is scared to post a story... what does that tell you about them?

[mmooss]

What says they were scared?

[ranger_danger]

> decided not to report the piece after being pressured

[mmooss]

I see what you are referring to, thanks.

'Pressure' doesn't mean fear necessarily. It could just result in different calculations of concern or risk.

More importantly, the word 'pressure' upthread was written by a random Wikipedia editor. It's not quoting NYT editor Bill Keller. I think reading much into it - or even relying on it at all - is risky.

From what I know, do I think the Bush administration attempted to pressure the NYT? I wouldn't be surprised. But the evidence says the Bush team made arguments about risk to national security. Those certainly could have influenced the NYT, and I think the NYT said that.