New York Times killed a story /could have changed the election

The Emperor's New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election

Extra! January/February 2005

By Dave Lindorff

In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper’s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial exposé of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump—identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.

It's clear even from unenhanced photos that George W. Bush has been wearing some kind of object under his clothing, both during the debates and at other public appearances. The enhancements done by NASA scientist Robert Nelson show a rectangular object with a long "tail"; in some shots a wire leading over Bush's shoulder is visible. This configuration closely resembles a PTT (Push To Talk) receiver with an induction earpiece, a device used by some actors, newscasters and politicians to allow for inaudible voice communication in a public setting. The particular model pictured here (which does not appear to be the exact type Bush wore) was manufactured by Resistance Technology, Inc. of Arden Hills, Minn.

The so-called Bulgegate story had been getting tremendous attention on the Internet. Stories about it had also run in many mainstream papers, including the New York Times (10/9/04, 10/18/04) and Washington Post (10/9/04), but most of these had been light-hearted. Indeed, the issue had even made it into the comedy circuit, including the monologues of Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and a set of strips by cartoonist Garry Trudeau.


More....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

voted out of office. Operation Mockingbird is still in effect and so are the PsyOps divisions in the DoD.

CBS 60 Minutes was going to run a story about election fraud. They spiked it. Why?

Well, rather had irrefutable evidence about AWOL *.

The rest is sad history.

but sadly not too suprised :-(

And they could have done a hundred stories on how e-voting was fruadulent, they could have talked about WMD, 9/11, Awol, and the lies. But they didn't.

Instead they gave us the Swift Boat Liars. Tell me again...whose side are they on?

That thread is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x103408

The two presentations both discuss the FAIR article, but the framing of its implication is somewhat different and they are in different Forums. I see no problem with that and thought readers interested in the story might want to see both sets of comments.

IMO it actually also fits the Media Forum because of what it says about the corruption of the corporate media in tnis country. It also says something about the level of incompetence and lack of character of the occupant of the White House and his enablers.

And to think the right-wing always complains about the "liberal" New York Times. What a joke!

Why didn't John Kerry file a complaint about this? He had to have known. I know, it's a rhetorical question at this point, and I don't want to stir up another DU hornet's nest, but this would have been a legitimate complaint.

I remain convinced that Kerry was unwilling, to an alarming degree, to take a chance by being really challenging on any issue. I'm especially ticked (still) at the unwillingness of Kerry and all the Dem challengers (well, nearly all) to rear up and hiss about any of the fraud that was so obvious to the rest of us.

debates. If * left his on, it would have said a lot.

and teeth, as well as more muscle flexing.

... but they had so many "rules"... Wasn't one of them about removing their jackets??? no rolling up their sleeves so to speak? I remember reading something where the bushies wanted the room warmer (knowing that Kerry wanted it cooler), hoping that Kerry would perspire.

Removing the jacket would have revealed a lot. I wonder who would have been the jacket police...

And the knot in my stomach. (still worth the read)
8/

I have a copy at work but not at home. Were they worried about him getting caught cheating in the debates, before he cheated in the election itself?

In any sane world this joker would have been back at the ranch in Texas in 2000 figuring out crooked oil deals.

I was big in the investigation pre-election. This NYT killing of the story was actually first released in the days before the Fraud of 04. Here's a few links to a good site:

http://bushwired.blogspot.com/2004/11/ny-times-kills-bulge-story.html#comments

http://bushwired.blogspot.com/

The so-called Bulgegate story had been getting tremendous attention on the Internet. Stories about it had also run in many mainstream papers, including the New York Times (10/9/04, 10/18/04) and Washington Post (10/9/04), but most of these had been light-hearted. Indeed, the issue had even made it into the comedy circuit, including the monologues of Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and a set of strips by cartoonist Garry Trudeau.

That the story hadn’t gotten more serious treatment in the mainstream press was largely thanks to a well-organized media effort by the Bush White House and the Bush/Cheney campaign to label those who attempted to investigate the bulge as "conspiracy buffs" (Washington Post, 10/9/04). In an era of pinched budgets and an equally pinched notion of the role of the Fourth Estate, the fact that the Kerry camp was offering no comment on the matter—perhaps for fear of earning a "conspiracy buff" label for the candidate himself—may also have made reporters skittish. Jeffrey Klein, a founding editor of Mother Jones magazine, told Mother Jones (online edition, 10/30/04) he had called a number of contacts at leading news organizations across the country, and was told that unless the Kerry campaign raised the issue, they couldn’t pursue it.

"Totally off base"

The Times’ effort to get to the bottom of the matter through a serious investigation seemed to be a striking exception. That investigation, however, despite extensive reporting over several weeks by three Times reporters, never ran. Now, like the mythic weapons of mass destruction that were the raison d’etre for the Iraq War, the Times is thus far claiming that the Bush Bulgegate story never existed in the first place.

Referring to a FAIR press release (11/5/04) about the spiked story, Village Voice press critic Jarrett Murphy wrote (11/16/04), "A Times reporter alleged to have worked on such a piece says FAIR was totally off base: The paper never pursued the story."

Murphy told Extra! that his source at the nation’s self-proclaimed paper of record—whom he would not identify—told him the information about the bulge seen under Bush’s jacket during the debates, provided by a senior astronomer and photo imaging specialist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, had been tossed onto the "nutpile," and was never researched further.

In fact, several sources, including a journalist at the Times, have told Extra! that the paper put a good deal of effort into this important story about presidential competence and integrity; they claim that a story was written, edited and scheduled to run on several different days, before senior editors finally axed it at the last minute on Wednesday evening, October 27. A Times journalist, who said that Times staffers were "pretty upset" about the killing of the story, claims the senior editors felt Thursday was "too close" to the election to run such a piece. Emails from the Times to the NASA scientist corroborate these sources’ accounts.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

but, I saw an explanation of the bulge, that wasn't a PTT device, but a heart monitor. It showed him wearing the same sort of thing driving in his pick up. That may be why they scrubbed the article.

zalinda

Then why the lies, deceit, secrecy, and multiple laughable explanations from the Bush Camp as to what it was?

Pucker George? Puck You George.

However, then the question arises...shouldn't the American people have been aware that there was a potential problem with the dimwit's heart? He's been given a clear bill of health. hmmmm.... bad heart or a "cheatin'" heart?
The MSM covers this misadministration's ass constantly. The American people cannot depend on our news organizations to get the truth about anything involving them. I believe they scrubbed the article because it wasn't on the approved list of topics to cover.
I cannot wait for the dimwit and his troop to get booted out. Maybe then we'll be able to get something other than spin.

for the heart monitor site
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/35839.php

zalinda

The irony is that within days of being inaugurated, * reversed the federal media ownership rules changes that FCC Chairman Powell had made so all the big media players like NYT and CNN and the others that went to extra-ordinary lengths to keep * in office (like sitting on the exit polls) to keep * in office got screwed.

Ill bet * and Cheney laughed real hard at how they pulled one over on the collective news media of America. It is how business is conducted in Texas. Suckers beware.

We have the photographic evidence and it can implant the thought that Bush is a cheater. It can make it into the MSM, it's just the sort of scandal they'll run with - not as extreme as massive election fraud. We build the case that Bush is a cheater and then we bring in the election fraud evidence.

causing unbearable psychological damage to millions of 'folks'; due neglect and failure to inform the public and withholding relevant information,etc. etc.

I saw these photos too at the time, didn't realize that there was anything illegal.

My question is whether * did this illegally, or is it just another case of him cheating and being slime. I'm not sure if there is anything illegal about wearing a wire because you are just too stupid to be able to answer anything by yourself.

fully revealed--wholesale looting of the federal government by military contractors, including VP personal gain; billions missing; soldiers lacking armored vests, armored vehicles and other essentials; the outing a CIA agent; the lack of air cover for DC and the Pentagon on 9/11; the "smoking" 9/11 warning memo; the flight of the Bin Ladens and others Saudis just after 9/11; widespread torture of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay...

...but with Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson counting our votes, none of it mattered. What makes you think Bush cheating would have mattered?

We all know * cheats all the time,(how else would he be in this position?) but doesn't the press have a responsibility to reveal the truth now and then?
Ethically and legally?
Here were all these respectable journalists and scientists ready to expose * but then nothing!
I guess they were all going to be 'accidented', if they went public!
Although a lot of 'us' were aware of all these cheating shenanigans, most others were not.

:kick: