In an editorial recently published in the New York Times, editor Arthur Brisbane calls on his newspaper to find out "who is the real Obama?" claiming the Times hasn't done much to focus on President Obama's re-election efforts. We might be able to take this call seriously if at the same time, Brisbane didn't state that the Times failed to cover President George W. Bush in a substantial way during the 2004 election cycle.
There is precedent for the disparity. The Republican primary fight is a prelude to the general election season. Eight years ago, The Times offered comparably scant campaign coverage of the incumbent, George W. Bush, even as it blanketed readers with articles about Senator John Kerry and others competing for the Democratic nomination.
Now, though, the general election season is on, and The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?
Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion.
The New York Times biased? No way!
Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
Right, for George W. Bush there was constant, and still is ongoing I might add, harsh criticism for high gas prices, the war in Iraq, the way he handled the economy, etc. etc. etc.