It Is Simply Disingenuous of Steven Greenhouse to Pretend Obama Isn't Relevent to His Article on Caterpillar

Reader comment on: Caterpillar and the Times

Submitted by Harrison O'Toole (United States), Jul 24, 2012 18:16

President Obama is a cheerleader for one particular company and The New York Times reporter doesn't see this as worthy of noting? It is ludicrous to claim that when the President of the United States of America has a close personal relationship with the leader of a private enterprise, a news story about that company (especially if it is more than a three-paragraph filler) makes no mention of that relationship represents "all the news that's fit to print." It isn't. It's the part of the news that the reporter selectively chooses to inform his readers. Yes, all journalism is selective, but this is selective to protect the President, not selective adequately to inform readers.

Why does Mr. Greenhouse think Ira Stoll has so many loyal readers? It is precisely because Mr. Greenhouse's once-great newspaper cannot be depended upon to give its readers all the pertinent facts.

It was courteous of Mr. Greenhouse to respond to Mr. Stoll's reasonable inquiry, but his pretense of not seeing relevance when relevance is fairly jumping off the page is, as Dana Carvey often said when he imitated H. Ross Perot, 20 years ago, "just sad."

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Comment on this item