October 31, 2008

Newspaper: 'No Evidence' Reporter Booted Over Endorsement

@ 1:23 pm by Hill Staff

The Dallas Morning News is disputing a claim that the newspaper lost a seat on Barack Obama's campaign plane Friday because it's editorial board endorsed John McCain.

In an online story posted Friday, the paper noted it was previously alerted that it would lose the seat due to spacial constraints.

"Obama aides told the DMN last Saturday that the paper would lose its seat on the plane on Wednesday," wrote Ryan J. Rusak, the News's government editor. Though the deadline for the paper's last day had been delayed, Rusak said the paper would leave after Saturday.

"But we don't have evidence that the newspaper's endorsement of Sen. McCain had any bearing on the campaign's decision to boot us from the plane," Rusak added, noting their news reporters had no knowledge of the paper's McCain endorsement. "We think the Obama campaign's decision is to some degree more a function of limited seats, and while we're a large regional newspaper, we're not national and we're not in a swing state."

Rusak noted that while the News continues to protest the decision, the paper has encountered similar issues periodically while traveling with the McCain campaign.

The Drudge Report highlighted the expulsion of the News, along with the New York Post and the Washington Times, two other papers with conservative editorial positions, and which endorsed McCain for president. "The Big Purge: Skeptical Reporters Tossed of Obama Plane," the website's headline read early Friday afternoon.

By contrast, Washington Times's top editor was less than pleased with Friday's development. "This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth," executive editor John Solomon said. "I hope the candidate that promises to unite America isn't using a litmus test to determine who gets to cover his campaign."

-Michael O'Brien

Archived under: Campaigns, News, Presidential Campaigns

13 Comments »

1. What, selective access is good enough for the Wash Times when others are excluded under the current administration, but it's a problem when they are the one being excluded? It's either a problem all the time or it's never a problem. John Solomon needs to grow up.

   Comment by demented — October 31, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

2. The Washington Times proves Bill Clinton correct. Clinton pointed out that under Bush, wealth was transferred from the poor to the rich, and Obama's plan to curb THAT sort of wealth distribution was decried by the Republicans as "socialism".

   A political campaign is entrusted with the donations of ordinary people. Solomon appears to believe that the campaign's decision to deploy its resources as it sees fit is unacceptable "wealth redistribution", as if the Washington Times somehow has a right to the money of small campaign donors. Their sense of entitlement - to OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY - is mind boggling.

   Comment by Ian — October 31, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

3. It's "its", not "it's"

   Comment by Joe — October 31, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

4. And we care about Drudge why? Havn't his sirens screamed false Right-leaning headlines for multiple years? Um, yes, they have. The Moonie Times, too, should just STFU. Props to DMN for at least trying to get the truth out and into the MSM.

   Comment by Ethan — October 31, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

5. Please get an editor, the misspellings and questionable syntax in this post are embarrassing, "spacial" [sic] being my favorite….

   Comment by Robert Richmann — October 31, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

6. Remember when a raised eyebrow from a Bush staffer would make newspaper editors and TV vice-presidents shiver?

   The times they are a'changin'.

   Comment by Bob Crispen — October 31, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

7. You wing nuts that accuse Obama of controlling the media are unbearable hippocrates. No one, but no one, controlled the news media more that Cheney/Bush. Travel back with me, back, backkk, backkkkk.Two words, Scooter Libby. Oh heck, let’s go with a few more words. Perhaps you might be more comfortable with the Armstrong Williams government paid propaganda story, or, of course, there’s the general’s that the Bush Crime Family paid under the table, hired by broadcast media to be independent analysts, but as it turns out, the generals were not too independent. They were actually paid propagandists for the State. Ever wonder why there were no dissenting opinions?

   The Crime Family was extremely tenuous in pursuing journalists, (and I use the term journalists loosely) and others that asked questions they didn’t like. They would call their bosses and try to get them fired and if that didn’t work, their names would go to the white wing talkers and ditto machines. The ditto heads would start calling the TV stations, papers, talk shows, etc., demanding they be fired. Did you forget all this? I could go on, but you get the point.

   Well, maybe one more for posterity. Both the networks, journalists, newspapers, and anyone else in the media that provided less then flattering coverage or asked tough questions, were told their access would be cut if they didn’t “wise up”. How relevant would the media coverage be if they had no access? Ironically, it would be about the same as if they “wised up” and played along. They, (most of the corporate media) sold their sole’s for access. There will be a special place reserved for them in hell for being complicit in the ill-advised war of choice and current occupation of Iraq.

   Those are facts, indisputable facts. Obama kicked off the plane, several, extreme, far right wing media “reporters” from papers who are mostly not read in swing states. They did however; offer them other accommodations and apologies. Oh, yea, Fox “news” still has a seat.

   Pound salt you hypocritical wing nuts1

   Comment by Randy Becker — November 1, 2008 @ 3:59 am

8. "Please get an editor, the misspellings and questionable syntax in this post are embarrassing, "spacial" [sic] being my favorite…."

   Sorry to take your special pleasure away, Mr Besserwisser, but it's meant to be "spacial'. The reporters were supposedly kicked out because of lack of space. Space - spacial. Get it now?

   Comment by Gunillla — November 1, 2008 @ 7:36 am

9. Nice one Joe, smart plumbers are hard to find these days!

   Comment by trevorfsj — November 1, 2008 @ 10:10 am

10. Let's all remember that the Washington Times is not real journalism- it is owned by Rev Moon (the Korean minister who runs the "Moonie" cult and proclaims himself to be the second coming, and who served time in a federal penitentiary for credit-card fraud) and run at a loss by him, to serve as an outlet for his far-right views on American politics. He has always been pro-Bush, and his paper often floats questionable stories which are then picked up by the more mainstream media. No doubt they employ some real journalists who can't get work at a real paper, but I wonder if this guy was one of them or just a right-wing flack??

    Comment by Al Fisher — November 1, 2008 @ 10:11 am

11. Sorry Gunilla but you are wrong. The correct spelling of the word is spatial and not spacial even though as you suggest it does refer to occupying space.

    Comment by trevorfsj — November 1, 2008 @ 10:18 am

12. You might want to look into correctly typing in the Drudge Report headline. Just a suggestion.

    Comment by Sarah — November 1, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

13. India-born entrepreneurs empower US voters

    Shukoor Ahmed ran for a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates in 1998, after coming to America a decade earlier from Hyderabad, India. Campaigning door-to-door, he was surprised so many voters did not know who represented them!

    After his race ended slightly short of victory, he took advantage of his Master’s degree in Computer Technology and Political Science to build StateDemocracy.org, a website he launched in 2001 to connect citizens and lawmakers. His website’s motto encapsulated its mission:

    Comment by timothy — November 5, 2008 @ 1:08 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment