Media Buries Obama-ACORN Tie Story

Most of us knew back during the election that ACORN–ostensibly a non-partisan community organization that also does voter registration–was deep in the pocket of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. We knew back then that ACORN was getting loot from Barack Obama’s old organization, the Annenberg Challenge, and another organization he served with, the Woods Fund.

We also knew ACORN was under investigation in about a dozen states for their improper election activities…yet this stayed largely off the radar of the “mainstream” media; after all, they had a more important job than reporting all the news in a balanced, objective manner: getting Barack Obama elected.

Exactly how deep and damning were ACORN’s activities and ACORN’s ties to Barack Obama?  Well, it’s difficult for the average American to find out…and some people like it that way.

It continues to become even more clear that both ACORN and the “mainstream” media were working as dedicated estheticians for Obama, keeping those unsightly wrinkles and blemishes out of sight and largely unnoticed by the American people.

Bill O’Reilly ran a segment last night on the cover-job the New York Times has done for Obama and ACORN. From a transcript of the segment:

Joining us now are two women in the middle of the story, Heather Heidelbaugh, an attorney who sued Acorn. She’s in Pittsburgh. And from Washington, Anita Moncrief, who’s names all over the place here, a former Acorn employee who became a whistleblower and talked to Stephanie Strom the reporter.

So Ms. Moncrief, “The Times” guy Hoyt says the paper says the paper didn’t have enough to run the Obama Acorn connection. They didn’t have enough evidence, what say you?

ANITA MONCRIEF, PROVIDED NYT DOCUMENTS WITH OBAMA-ACORN RELATIONSHIP: I think that he is wrong. “The New York Times” had the Obama donor list. This was not the donor list that was given to the FEC. This was the list that included the smaller donors, the $50 donors, the $25 donors. The list that the FEC . never saw. It would have been really easy to cross check and check with these people and see if they had given to the campaign. This was the complete second quarter Obama donor list.

O’REILLY: All right, and the donor list would have indicated a lot of Acorn people on it, giving money to the campaign. But look, even if they didn’t cross-check, even if they didn’t do it, you supplied “The New York Times,” Ms. Moncrief, with an awful lot of evidence that never made it into print, did you not?

MONCRIEF: That’s correct. I went through and gave Stephanie Strom background on Project Vote and Acorn. She knew how they were operating as an unofficial arm of the party. She had the Kerry list, the Clinton list. She had all of this information. And I had been working with Marcelle Reed of the Acorn eight. And I saw the 14 page report that she wrote about through Elizabeth Kinsley

The New York Times just “didn’t have enough evidence,” eh? That never seemed to stop them from reporting the slightest hint of a scandal concerning Republicans. Apparently there are two standards in play with the “mainstream” media.

Heidelbaugh breaks it down succinctly:

HEIDELBAUGH: That’s right. And I – when I read his article, I was sort of reminded of a Clintonesque moment. What is the definition of is? Because what he’s trying to do is he’s trying to parse the language. And what we really need to know is would the electorate have cared if they had known that President – candidate Obama and the Acorn organization were tied in much more than what the candidate admitted to? Would that have mattered to the electorate? And what Clark Hoyt said yesterday was, as a matter of opinion, because his column was on the opinion page, that the American electorate didn’t care and therefore was not a game changer. Well, I would pose it to your viewers.

O’REILLY: Well, yeah…

HEIDELBAUGH: Would the electorate liked to have known?

O’REILLY: …it’s not Hoyt’s job to dictate what the American people care about and what they don’t care about. But I don’t want to be unfair to Obama, I don’t know how much Obama knew about his campaign people and Acorn. The man was busy. He was out all over the place. And it’s certainly, Ms. Moncrief, I’m going to give you the “last word.” It’s certainly possible Barack Obama had no idea what was going on in the field. But I still think that “The New York Times” totally booted the story and was very disrespectful to you, Ms. Moncrief. You gave them a great story and they basically spiked it.

Oh, but the Leftists in the “mainstream” media believe it is their job to determine what the American people should care about and know about. They are, after all, vastly more intelligent, informed and broad-gauged than the ignorant, filthy masses out there in regular America.

Given the way the media behaved during the election and since, it’s a wonder they have any viewers or readers left at all.  It’s no wonder CNN’s ratings are in the tank and newspapers are struggling all across the country; as people find other alternatives to the Leftist propaganda that tries to pass itself off as “news,” they leave the “mainstream” media in droves.

Meanwhile, our republic suffers because too much of the information being provided to the American people–information they use when deciding how to vote and what to say when they contact their elected representatives–is pure hogwash, and what isn’t is so suspect and of dubious reliability that it’s hard for the average person to know what to believe.

If the people in the media who are complicit in this kind of deception and distortion had any measure of integrity left at all, they would be ashamed for doing these things.  But they are shameless in their elitist attitude; it is our fault for not understanding that they are looking out for us by telling us what we should think.

And so we can expect their deception to continue…

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.