Media Always Follow New York Times' Lead ... Unless It's Pigford
Mark your calendars, my friends, because something extraordinary happened on April 26th of this year: The New York Times' above-the-fold, A1 story did not set the agenda for that day's news narrative. Every other day of the year, for decades now, it has been the front page of the Times that editors around the country have looked to in order to decide what their own newsroom priorities will be.
But not on April 26, 2013.
And why would that be?
In a word: Obama.
Last week, the Times devoted 5500 words to an in-depth investigation into what came to be known as Pigford; a cynically-conceived wealth-redistribution scheme that used racial guilt to leverage a shakedown of the American taxpayer for billions of dollars. It was a plot conceived by leftists, made possible by Democratic lawmakers, and encouraged and expanded with the help of Senator, and eventually, President Obama.
And besides the taxpayers, who else got screwed? The black farmers who really were discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
You see, had the rest of the media slavishly followed the Times' lead that day, questions might have been raised that would make Obama uncomfortable. And as we've seen with Libya and the failed economy, the media just cannot allow that to happen -- especially with respect to a scandal.
And the media certainly won't report on a story that might give the American public another reason to distrust government largesse, especially when it is wrapped in racial guilt.
Another word that might explain the one day in decades where the media ignored the New York Times, is "Breitbart."
Just as the media refuses to do anything other than to protect Obama, the media surely won't do anything that might burnish Andrew Bretbart's legacy and reputation. You see, Andrew wasn't "one of them." He believed in truth, and when you believe in truth that makes you a natural enemy of the media.
Pigford was Andrew's cause. He bravely and selflessly chose to be the champion of this story and who knows how many black farmers who had been legitimately discriminated against. And for this concern, he was ignored, scorned, ridiculed, and called a racist.
But, hey, just because the New York Times completely vindicates a man who was unfairly smeared over the final months of his life, that doesn't mean the rest of the media has to go all crazy over it, right?
Possible government corruption that might involve a vote-buying scheme to benefit a sitting president? Don't you know that when Obama and Democrats could be politically damaged, there is nothing to see there -- even when The New York Times says there is.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC