NY Times Changes AIG Bonus Articles to Clear Dodd

[Truth2Tell]

Again from Glenn Greenwald.

Sometime in the last two hours the New York Times has moved and changed the content of their stories about the AIG bonuses in order to exonerate Dodd:

Rather oddly, the NYT article I quoted above, by David Herzsenhorn, has been moved on the NYT site and is now at http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/outcry-builds-for-recovery-of-aig-bonuses/?scp=1&sq=David%20Herszenhorn&st=cse">this link (see http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=David+Herszenhorn&more=past_1">here). Most importantly, it has been re-written to reflect that fact that it was not Dodd who inserted the exception for past contracts:

But Mr. Reid mostly ducked a question about whether Democrats had missed an opportunity to prevent the bonuses because of a clause in the stimulus bill, that imposed limits on executive compensation and bonuses but made an exception for pre-existing employment contracts.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who initially proposed adding executive compensation and bonus limits to the stimulus bill, did not include the exception.

In the place of the Herzsenorn article is now http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18bailout.html?_r=1&hp">this article by Jackie Calmes and Louise Story that also includes the Dodd version of events:

Mr. Geithner reiterated the Treasury position of that lawyers inside and out of government had agreed that “it would be legally difficult to prevent these contractually mandated payments.”

That position was being questioned at the Capitol. Congressional Republicans, eager to implicate Democrats, initially blamed Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the banking committee, for adding to the economic recovery package an amendment that cracked down on bonuses at companies getting bailout money, but that exempted bonuses protected by contracts, like A.I.G.’s.

Mr. Dodd, in turn, responded Tuesday with a statement saying that the exemption actually had been inserted at the insistence of Treasury during Congress’s final legislative negotiations.

Something in the last couple of hours caused The New York Times to change the way it is reporting this matter so that it is no longer mindlessly reciting the false White House attempt to blame Dodd for the bonus exemption, but instead is at least including a version of the truth.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18bailout.html?hp">Original Times article here

Curiouser and curiouser. The Times, however, is still obfuscating when they blame smearing of Dodd on "Congressional Republicans." It's already been established that Geithner and Summers hatched this story and that the Obama White House spread it around.

Edit: to add links

[Louis-Emmanuel]

1. Not surprisingly, from a paper that took us to war

Based on what Cheney fed them.

At least they acted quick this time.

[elleng]

3. NYT was the ONLY paper to do so???

.

[Louis-Emmanuel]

5. I didn't say that

I simply said they did.

[elleng]

6. I see that.

Pointing them out, however, leaves the impression that they were the only one, or one of few, which clearly wasn't the case.

[elleng]

2. Anything about deletion of Snowe's anti-bonus amd???

.

[moundsview]

4. If true, my apologies to Sen. Dodd for my posts

And who the fcuk is treasury then. Someones head needs to roll.

Really amateurish in any case.

[Uzybone]

7. How soon before Greenwald has to eat Crow about Gibbs, Rahm and Geithner?

"It's already been established that Geithner and Summers hatched this story and that the Obama White House spread it around."

Where is your proof of this smear?

[Truth2Tell]

9. Fair enough Uzybone.

A re-read of the post confirms your point that Greenwald failed to establish Geithner and Summers as the sources of the smear. All he actually sites is the citation of "administration officials" by the NYT. (Other media also site admin officials.) If you believe the Times, that does, however, rule out some others potential sources. Congressional Republicans for example.

The Gibbs case is a little foggier. I read the press conference transcript and it sure sounds to me like Gibbs was deliberately attempting to identify Dodd with the bonus provisions in the Bill. It seemed not just that he was misinformed, but that he was pushing a meme. That's just my read. If that is an accurate take, then implicating Emmanuel and Geithner, et al (even Obama) is a natural conclusion.

I will join you waiting for this to fall out. But considering my view of the level of honesty of the participants I'll put my money on Geithner eating crow before Greenwald.

[Uzybone]

10. Notice that the Times has also stripped the admin officials reference

and now says Congressional Republicans were the ones blaming Dodd.

And please read the transcript again...it does not seem to me that Gibbs is roping in Dodd as a scapegoat. His references seem to suggest that the WH intends to use the Dodd provision as a weapon to recoup the bonus funds.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8268126&mesg_id=8268212

[Clio the Leo]

12. Well I have now WATCHED Gibbs four times.....

.... after reading your other threads and I can assure that's not the tone he was giving.

He was citing the provision as the reason why the admin. is limited. Nothing more, nothing less. His remark had nothing to do with Dodd. The only reason he cited Dodd's name was to reference WHICH provision he was referring to.

[liberalsince1968]

15. Same here. Greenwald is one of the very few I trust.

[Clio the Leo]

11. Exactly!

So did our mystery source call the Times back because they'd changed their mind about going after Dodd? Please. This whole thing is laughable.

[Truth2Tell]

13. So was The Times lying about their source initially

or now? Or did they just forget who it was?

[Clio the Leo]

18. Yep, I'm callin' BS on the Times.

Any other theory simply makes no sense.

[Jennicut]

19. Lying..to set an agenda. Once again why do we jump to conclusions here

without all the facts? The entire thing sounds like a set up.

[vaberella]

14. It's all a confirmed set up. Wow...the Repubs are amazing idiots. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. It's BS. The economy is rebounding, stocks are up - the MSM needs something else to pin on Obama.

[Median Democrat]

8. Notice - Its In The OPINION Section! Sources? Facts?

Greenwald wrote a story in the NY Times about how he would have litigated the bonus issue, which is great, but now he seems on this vendetta to show that his brilliant legal theory was the only way to go, and the failure to follow his approach must be due to some outside evil influence. Its a trash rant by Greenwald, which he presents as fact.

Look at the url:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald /

[WeDidIt]

16. Greenwald has fucked up worse than Jason Leopold

and will be cast into the same pit of journalistic idiocy in 24 business hours.

[Jennicut]

20. Hopefully.

[anonymous171]

21. The NYT is a joke.

Remember that whole "OBAMA CHANGED HIS IRAQ STANCE" nontroversy they fabricated during the election?

[Cha]

22. Rec'd~

Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Greenwald's really been fucking up lately.

Pulling a Milbank.

[Truth2Tell]

24. So let me see if I have this straight.

The NYT prints a story citing "administration officials."

Greenwald cites that story.

The NYT then changes their story and now cites "Congressional Republicans," directly contradicting themselves.

This somehow constitutes Greenwald "fucking up."

Got it.