Story of the Day: NY Times Buries Dodd's Filibuster Threat Victory

(updated below)

It's nothing new for our country's Paper of Record to stick a crucial story in its back pages (often while providing front-page real estate to a particularly banal article).

But one of the most egregious examples of such editorial decisions is today's move by The New York Times to bury news of presidential candidate Senator Christopher Dodd's victorious filibuster threat against the proposed telecom immunity bill.

So what page did The Times slip in this account of Dodd's courageous and historic stand? What page did it cover this patriotic push-back to a bill that, if passed, would effectively reward telecom companies for complicity in the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping of millions of innocent American citizens and set a frightening precedent of similar retroactive immunity in such cases where various parties (CIA, Blackwater mercenaries, etc.) took part in torture, extraordinary renditions or other criminal activities in George Bush's "war on terror"? What page did the paper that sat on the illegal wiretapping story for a year - before "scooping" it - deem this fit to print?

A29. Yes, A29.

(The online version has no page numbers, but this news is buried there as well; no mention of it even makes the home page - where over 90 stories currently reside.)

Now ask yourself how? Who at The Times authorized this inane editorial decision? And what excuse can possibly explain it away?

Senator Dodd's threat to filibuster yesterday and his triumph in having the patently unconstitutional bill withdrawn from a vote last night is precisely the kind of story that should be big news in a democracy, especially one such as ours, which has been gasping under the boot of an overtly criminal White House for seven long years.

What's the sound of one U.S. senator taking a successful stand against a rogue White House administration and its spineless collaborators in Congress?

If you're The Times, it's something akin to a whisper.

(Editor's Note: If you tried to comment today and received a message about triggering the spam filter - some people got this, some didn't - I apologize for your troubles. Typepad, which hosts this site, has installed a new, overly aggressive spam filter. Rest assured I can now access this filter and publish anyone's comment that incorrectly winds up there. So post comments as you normally would. If you don't see yours right away, you will shortly. Thanks for your patience and for contributing to the conversation.)

UPDATE: Commenter EastFallowfield left this earlier today:

A29 in the Times doesn't mean it's buried. It's not front page, but the first x amount of pages after page 1 are International News.

The National news starts in the middle somewhere, and this time of year there are a ton of fullpage or other large ads filling up many pages of the A section. It was right in the middle of all the pages on politics and such.

The Times is no "Thinkprogress" or Kos, but if it's not on the front page then it was pretty much where it was supposed to be in their world.

I responded to it in the comments section and thought the points made helped to further clarify the irresponsibility of The Times' editorial decision, so I'm reposting my response here, too:

EastFallowField, thanks for your comment. But I think you're giving The Times far too much credit here. First, there's no valid reason why this story didn't make the front page. That said, here's a deeper examination of its specific placement:

When the Times thinks a story is important but is short on space, it sometimes puts a photo of the story on the cover that calls out the page number inside (as it did for the large Darfur peace rally in Central Park a year and a half ago).

Or the Times will highlight a story on the front page's "Inside" section. What were some of the stories on the "Inside" section that beat out the Dodd news yesterday? #2: "NBC Late Shows to Resume"; #4: "Why the Long Face?" (about a new book that helps you diagnose what's ailing your pet dog, cat, ferret, etc.); #7: "A Winning Influence" (a successful all-Indian high school basketball team in Oklahoma).

In addition to the "Inside" section (located on the cover), there is also the "News Summary" area located on the following page (A2). This section also serves to highlight important articles inside the paper, from International, National, New York/Region, Business, Science, Health & Fitness, and Editorial. This section calls out five National stories. The Dodd news wasn't there either. What's one of the stories that was? #3: "Churches Battle Witchcraft." I wish I were making that up. Unfortunately, this was yet another story The Times deemed more critical than Dodd's victory.

Finally, the first page of the National section on that day was A24; the Dodd news, as mentioned, was located on A29. That's six pages into the National news section. While it should've been on the cover, that it didn't make the first page of the National section and didn't appear until six pages deep into it, only further underscores the absurdity of The Times' editorial decision and confirms the story was indeed buried.

Moreover, please note two of the three National stories trumping Dodd's victory on the first page of the section - the aforementioned witchcraft article: "A Midnight Service Helps African Immigrants Combat Demons" and this more pressing national news item: "San Francisco's Mayor Proposes Fee on Sales of Sugary Soft Drinks."

Comments

[Brad Jacobson]

NY Times Buries Dodd's Filibuster Threat Victory

[Aris]

What's ironic is that the top NYT editorial today is in support of Dodd's efforts. This must be a new definition of schizophrenia.

[Diane]

The Washington Post also had almost no coverage of the issue. Although they had an article on page A2 after the fact, there was nothing giving any of its readers notice that the issue was up for debate, or that Dodd was mounting the filibuster - nothing to give citizens the ability to support Dodd in his efforts. Moreover, comments I sent to the Post's political chat sessions on Monday and Tuesday were ignored in favor of the usual horserace questions and discussion.

[Elvis Elvisberg]

Their editorial judgment is grounded in a deep, rigid, ideological commitment to centrism.

To them, because Harry Reid supported this bill, it was a peculiar and extreme move by Dodd, leading to a temporary setback.

The substance of the issue is immaterial.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

Well, it was a big news day. Britney's little sister got pregnant, and Hillary is trying to become more well liked!

[Rich2506]

Philadelphia Inquirer had nothing. $70 billion for the war made page A10, Front page is all local stories except for McCain and yeah, Britney's sister is the first picture on the bottom four pix of the day in the online version.

[Michael Markman]

You'd think that on the basic "man bites dog" scale, a Democrat showing some spine would break on A-1.

[FearItself]

Isn't John Edwards the father of Britney's sister's baby? That justifies putting it on the front page, right?

[cwazycajun]

does ruppert murdock secretly own the new york times??? inquiering minds wanna know

[EastFallowfield]

A29 in the Times doesn't mean it's buried. It's not front page, but the first x amount of pages after page 1 are International News.

The National news starts in the middle somewhere, and this time of year there are a ton of fullpage or other large ads filling up many pages of the A section. It was right in the middle of all the pages on politics and such.

The Times is no "Thinkprogress" or Kos, but if it's not on the front page then it was pretty much where it was supposed to be in their world.

[GR]

Why does anyone find this unusual? It's like trying to make sense of Joe Klein LYING to his readers and TIME going along with it, supporting the deception. This is America's media. They are ALL corporate whores, they do NOT care about this country only theirs and their friends money and power, that is all. Americas future, the constitution is horseshit in these people's eyes.

Remember Howard Dean threatended to reduce media consolidation and what happened to him?

Now what do you think would be happening to Dodd right now if he were actually in a position to win the nomination? hah You would have every outlet attacking him today talking about how he has killed the democratic party and is endangering "the troops'. The only one not hammering Dodd today would be Chris Matthews and that is only because he is still spitting all over himself due to his sick, sick Hillary fetish.

To think this nation can expect ANY part of its media to be honest or do their "job" when it comes to protecting democrcacy is as silly as thinking Bush would tell the truth or "change" or to think conservatism isn't eat up with theocrats, fascists, homophobic and anti-science authoritarians...to think the media cares is to be an naive and complicit as the democrats who still don't understand conservatism is about the subvertion of the constitution, that is ALL they do.

[Lolly]

So, why not move it up to the front page of their online version by e-mailing it to someone? Then it will be on their "most e-mailed" list, despite their attempts to bury it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/washington/18nsa.html

[Ulysses]

I second the e-mailing suggestion... it really works!!

[Chris_B]

See! More proof of the liberal media and their nefarious anti-corporate agenda!

[Jim Lund]

It's a scene out of the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"! Updated slightly--there's no free paper trying to print the news so we are spared the sight of NYT thugs beating kids, and the A29 mention allows the NYT to claim they 'covered' the story.

Those old science fiction stories predict the future remarkably well, but the details are always slightly off. :)

[Eric Juve]

The Oregonian had nothing...

[Brad Jacobson]

EastFallowfield, thanks for your comment. But I think you're giving The Times far too much credit here. First, there's no valid reason why this story didn't make the front page. That said, here's a deeper examination of its specific placement:

When the Times thinks a story is important but is short on space, it sometimes puts a photo of the story on the cover that calls out the page number inside (as it did for the large Darfur peace rally in Central Park a year and a half ago).

Or the Times will highlight a story on the front page's "Inside" section. What were some of the stories on the "Inside" section that beat out the Dodd news yesterday? #2: "NBC Late Shows to Resume"; #4: "Why the Long Face?" (about a new book that helps you diagnose what's ailing your pet dog, cat, ferret, etc.); #7: "A Winning Influence" (a successful all-Indian high school basketball team in Oklahoma).

In addition to the "Inside" section (located on the cover), there is also the "News Summary" area located on the following page (A2). This section also serves to highlight important articles inside the paper, from International, National, New York/Region, Business, Science, Health & Fitness, and Editorial. This section calls out five National stories. The Dodd news wasn't there either. What's one of the stories that was? Number three: "Churches Battle Witchcraft." I wish I were making that up. Unfortunately, this was yet another story The Times deemed more critical than Dodd's victory.

Finally, the first page of the National section on that day was A24; the Dodd news, as mentioned, was located on A29. That's six pages into the National news section. While it should've been on the cover, that it didn't make the first page of the National section and didn't appear until six pages deep into it, only further underscores the absurdity of The Times' editorial decision and confirms the story was indeed buried.

Moreover, please note two of the three National stories trumping Dodd's victory on the first page of the section - the aforementioned witchcraft article: "A Midnight Service Helps African Immigrants Combat Demons" and this more pressing national news item: "San Francisco's Mayor Proposes Fee on Sales of Sugary Soft Drinks."

[cal1942]

"What's ironic is that the top NYT editorial today is in support of Dodd's efforts. This must be a new definition of schizophrenia."

Schizophrenia yes. but News division is separate from Editorial division