The New York Times reports on Sarah Palin’s trip to Pennsylvannia:
“Obama says that his only involvement with Acorn was when he represented the group as a lawyer,” she said before a crowd of 6,000 people. “But what about the training that he provided Acorn’s staff? And the $200,000 that he got for Acorn when he was on the board of the Woods Fund? And the fact that Acorn endorsed him this year? And they sure are working hard on his behalf. Now wouldn’t that be a lot of baggage to drag into the Oval Office?”
The Obama campaign has said that the candidate was only briefly involved with Acorn, representing it in a lawsuit in 1995 and conducting training sessions for the group.
And what about this Woods Fund? Hmmm. The Times doesn’t say. Do its viewers even know what the Woods Fund is, given the Times’ paucity of reporting on the topic? Not likely. And they certainly haven’t seen reported in the pages of the Times any of the other organizations that received Woods Fund money. And the fact that ACORN is “working hard” for Obama — does the Times mention the $800K plus paid by the Obama camp to ACORN? Nope.
If readers lived in the Times news cocooon, they’d like be baffled by the story or assume Palin was making up stuff. Certainly if there was real information out there substantiating a long-standing relationship between Obama and a group under investigation by the FBI for coast-to-coast voter registration fraud they would have read about this before, right? Not really. Perhaps if the Times covered all the news that is fit to print and not just a sliver helpful to its favorite candidate its stock price wouldn’t look like this. (h/t Glenn Reynolds)
This, by the way, is why it is critical for candidates to talk about topics like ACORN, Ayers, and the like. It forces the MSM to mention information they otherwise could comfortably ignore. And their readers and viewers then get a hint that there is a whole swatch of news that isn’t been covered.