Evidently the editors of the New York Times have taken leave of their senses. There can be no other explanation for putting a story on the front page of their newspaper speculating about Barack Obama's being assassinated.

The Times is beginning to make it a practice of running news-free stories on its front page. Most of them are harmless, but this one is sickening.

A thumb-sucking cogitation about the possible murder of anybody, much less a presidential candidate, is out of bounds even on the obituary page. For the Old Gray Lady to print such a story on its front page is an unforgivable lapse of judgment.

The Times prides itself on its good taste. It will not print the commonly used four-letter words of American English, but seems to have no qualms about naming as a target someone it believes may be assassinated. Would Bill Keller, the paper's editor, print a story about people worrying that there may be a McCain supporter skulking around New York looking to do him in?

The Times is the most influential newspaper in the United States if not the world, a newspaper whose contents are used as a guide by every broadcast medium, every newspaper, daily or weekly, every radio talk show, every big-time Internet site.

By printing the story, the Times gives the green light to all forms of communications to speculate on the murdering this man.  Whether they are able to realize it or not, the individuals who run the paper have made sure that the idea of such an assassination has gone out to excited minds everywhere as if in an age when political, religious and racial murder is an everyday occurrence, such thoughts need greater dissemination. You would think the Times prints enough stories of such killings that it would have no need to invent ones which have not happened.

The piece in its Internet version even contained graphic information that might assist a homicidal maniac by including a pictures showing the faces of at least six of the Secret Service personnel assigned to guard Obama. Several other pictures revealed how the Secret Service stations its people to protect the Illinois senator in public situations. What do you call that? News you can use?

The article contained no news peg, other than revealing the precautions taken to keep the candidate safe. It ruminated about the murders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy and the worries some people have that such a fate might befall Obama. Millions of us have had the same thought and kept our mouths shut, but not the Times.

The Times is not alone. Not long ago USA Today ran a short Associated Press dispatch with a headline reading "Nobel winner Lessing: Obama would be killed if elected." Doris Lessing, a writer of very long, very dull books, is almost 90 years old with a small group of aging admirers, none of whom display a proclivity toward violence. What is the Times' excuse?

The Times' article, to repeat, had no news it. It was a gratuitous speculation by a staff writer. Whether it will also turn out to have been an incitement to act by some deranged person history will in due course let us know. Then and only then should the Times feel free to go to press.

Comments (27)

1. Guess maybe they're attempting to tip the scale back after the McCain peice?

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 8:30pm

2. the Times did fine on both counts. the concern for Obama is palpable. it had surfaced here and in many other places. after Kennedy, Malcolm X, King and Kennedy, it's no wonder. I am far more concerned with the stories the paper sits on, rather than those it publishes, excepting the rush to war.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 8:36pm

3. They kinda nutty lately.

   Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 8:44pm

4. I am far more concerned with the stories the paper sits on, rather than those it publishes, excepting the rush to war.

   Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/25/2008 @ 8:36pm

   A good point.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 8:44pm

5. Obama will be protected by Wall Street. Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages ... These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.

   more here [mickeyz.net]

   Posted by coolobserver at 02/25/2008 @ 8:44pm

6. Do the editors of the NYT want Obama to be assassinated? If so, it begs the question of why?

   This excerpt from Mersheimer and Walt's insightful work on the Israel Lobby may help shine some light on this, as it is clear that the NYT is pro-Israel, and this means "anything" Israel wants it gets, and I think they may have some questions concerning Obama's ability to support "everything" the Israel government wants to do, including the continued illegal settlements on Palestinian land:

   Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times. The Times occasionally criticizes Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but it is not even-handed. In his memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel acknowledged the impact his own pro-Israel attitude had on his editorial choices. In his words: "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert." He goes on: "Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective."

   Certainly, ending the influence of lobbyists in Washington as promised by Obama would INCLUDE the Israeli lobby, and this may explain the NYT's position.

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 8:49pm

7. Posted by COOLOBSERVER 02/25/2008 @ 8:44pm

   You're not as cool as you think you are, or probably as observant.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 8:49pm

8. well everybody has thought this...still kinda tabloidy and of dubious relevence...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 8:51pm

9. Posted by COOLOBSERVER 02/25/2008 @ 8:44pm

   This Opensecrets.org reporting of "fundraising by industry" is EXTRAORDINARILY misleading, as it "assumes" without "any" factual basis that "employees" that donate to a candidate were told to do so by their "employer".

   We all saw the movie SICKO, and saw the "thousands" of letters Michael Moore received from employees in the healthcare industry that DISAGREED with the policies of their employers. If you are an associate or partner at a law firm or investment bank, this does NOT mean that you agree with the practices of every client of your firm, and to push this guilt by association is disingenuous.

   Many employees feel trapped in occupations and at companies they despise, but put mortgage payments and kids tuition ahead of their disdain for their employers.

   Certainly, there are those at certain companies that "bundle" funds from employees and donate them to a particular candidate, but you cannot confuse this bundling with "individual" (pay CLOSE attention to the date the contribution was made by going to the FEC website) contributions made by high-paid employees who simply like a particular candidate!

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 8:57pm

10. NVH: T....contained graphic information...including a pictures showing the faces of at least six of the Secret Service personnel .....other pictures revealed how the Secret Service stations its people to protect the Illinois senator in public situations. What do you call that?...

    Well, Nicholas, when the NYT exposed the highly secret & successful efforts to track terrorist finances, were you pissed off? Well.....I didn't think so!

    I have no problem w/the Times doing such a story except for the stupidity of printing faces and how men are stationed around him. That said, anyone actually contemplating such a deed, will almost certainly scout out several of his Revivals and know this anyway. But for readers at large, another "most influential" stupidity.....any mystery why this rag is in deep doo doo??

    Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 9:09pm

11. They kinda nutty lately.

    Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 8:44pm

    the times sees itself as the FIFTH branch of government.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 9:41pm

12. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 9:41pm

    Continue on this trajectory and with this stuff, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, support for the invasion of Iraq, the Blogosphere, etc., etc.....the Old Grey Lady will become just another city newspaper.

    Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 9:44pm

13. the Old Grey Lady will become just another city newspaper.

    Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 9:44pm

    you mean like this one?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:48pm

14. "Doris Lessing, a writer of very long, very dull books." Well, this is an unfortunate characterization. Try The Golden Notebook. Long, yes. Dull, anything but. Have you ever read anything by her, Nicholas?

    Posted by Dudio at 02/25/2008 @ 10:57pm

15. after writing articles almost daily telling us about obama being such a great this and that *black* person, about how he coped with being *black* this and *black* that, while *black* this and that, blah, blah, blah, about how his *blackness* is this and that and about how his wife's more standard *blackness" lets her be this and that, early and late in his/her *black* journey through life, up and down, over and under, etc, etc, but always *black* (get it !? BLACK, it's spelled B L A C K, just in case you misunderstood it); but to no avail since the "uncertainty of hope"TM keeps winning primaries... now the nyt tries the poison pill and asks the subconscious of millions of demoblicans whether they really would like to risk losing their candidate to an assassin shortly before the election.... would you ?! :O

    folks, the kingdom is endangered and the nyt must do what it can to help hillary to prevail, the same hillary who is now a pro-israel hawk but once hugged arafat's wife and later had to abjure and say "i barely touched her". yes, she has learned *that* lesson and that is enough for the nyt to know that she will be ready from day one... ;)

    Posted by erplus at 02/26/2008 @ 12:14am

16. here's another reason the times has turned into schlop

    It's All About Him

    By WILLIAM KRISTOL

    Published: February 25, 2008

    Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

    oooooh, lapel pins

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 01:02am

17. The story the NYTimes sat on was that at that Dallas event, the Secret Service failed to do any screening of the audience. Their explanation was that "the audience looked friendly." This story, which the Times ignored last week & failed to mention in this latest piece, was discussed at some length on the Bill Maher show Friday 22 Feb (available on youtube), wherein Frum (!), without being asked, jumped in with a lame defense of the SS, hypothesizing that the piece that provoked their discussion (no cite given, but all 5 participants had read it) must have lost a few paragraphs that explained everything. The SS looked very bad. The Times piece is an attempt initiated by the SS to overcome the bad P.R. they had attracted the week before. The Times piece is non-news, but a Times favor done for the SS. Trust the Times, after its govt conduit service on the Iraq invasion, to continue serving its Masters, not its readers.

    Posted by sloper at 02/26/2008 @ 01:42am

18. Heedlessly leaping in without reading all the comments prior, meaning no discourtesy and apologizing for any seeming silly repetition. (Also I'm left with no spirit for the customary snark.)

    First, as noted in the piece it's already on everybody's mind and has been for some time now and I find it as I think it was intended, to be reassuring in some small but important way. It's no news that he's in potential danger. It is news that he is being attended so seriously, and that is welcome news. After the Texas debate and Boston stories I expect everyone who worried, and that would be millions of people, became more worried. The piece speaks to our fears not provocatively but rather easing them.

    It covered all the bases from people in the street to Senators to Obama. And it stirs our admiration for his humanity and his intelligence and his calm focus. We understand Mr. Von Hoffman has neither a tin ear nor an inclination to hysteria; given that, his reaction is difficult (for me at least) to grasp.

    The photographs were pretty spectacular, offering vivid images in a variety of genres: LIFE Magazine that was, back in the day, would have been proud to publish them. (The faces of the Secret Service officers were photographed, we can be sure, with permission, and in any event represent the tip of the tip of the iceberg. And I can only imagine they take great pride in their task, and perform it with honed skill. This is good news that is important to us. Has the NYT been derelict?

    Posted by felixculpa at 02/26/2008 @ 04:33am

19. Here's another story the times and other mainstream media should be covering. This is a major story because it gets right down to the root philosophy of the republican political campaign machine, smear and destory. Karl Rove, Bush and Cheney tactics in action over and over and over again. These three guys should be investigated, removed from their positions of power and thrown in the slam, not allowed to hide evidence in libraries.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/national/main3876493.shtml

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/26/2008 @ 07:48am

20. Doesnt it also let people know that he has secret service protection. Maybe they are people out there that didnt know this now they do and its frightening to me that they say he has secret service protection comparable to a sitting president. What if there is a deranged person out there that see this as a challenge to kill someone who has comparable sitting president protection.

    I've been so disappointed in the NYT I've had to cut back on my subscription to Saturdays and Sundays. They are dangerously walking a fine line between News and tabolid news.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/26/2008 @ 08:42am

21. The only thing the Times is good for is potting training my puppy. Funny that Liberals/Progressives are finally realizing this.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 02/26/2008 @ 09:30am

22. Happy-There wasn't any highly secret way that terrorist finances were being traced.Bush said in a speech that the finances would be traced and any idiot could figure out how considering the fact that the same method is used to track all criminal finances.Nothing secret about it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/26/2008 @ 09:56am

23. From Wikipedia:

    '...Author Samuel Roy has written: "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation...."...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/26/2008 @ 11:02am

24. Anyone whose head isn't where the sun don't shine must have considered the possibility of Obama's being assassinated by a racist with a high-powered rifle. That threat, given voice by the New York Times or not, has less to do with Obama's platform, which is regrettably corporatist, than it has to do with the color of his skin (and, of all things, his name). Obama may be winning the majority of the vote of white men in the primaries, but not all white men are happy with the idea of an African-American being president, and there are yahoos out there who believe it's a fair tradeoff to become a "historical figure" in exchange for thwarting what appears to be the welcome, by some, eventuality of an Obama presidency. The motivation of the Times giving so many column inches to theorizing about Obama's demise is hard to understand, almost as hard to understand as the perception that the New York Times is a liberal rag. But it's worth remembering that the Times is a business, and as such is primarily concerned with its bottom-line, with its self-perpetuation at any cost. Given those givens, I don't doubt that the Times would go so far as to encourage, no matter how inadvertently, the death of a candidate if it were to lead to more sales (by giving its columnists a chance to wax eloquent on a national tragedy, which the Times, and other members of the press, have made a specialty). Hopefully, Team Clinton's character assassination of Obama is the only assassination Obama, and we, will have to experience.

    Posted by John D at 02/26/2008 @ 11:48am

25. '...Author Samuel Roy has written: "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation...."...'

    Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 02/26/2008 @ 11:02am | ignore this person

    what does this have to do with anything? it is a callous and nasty remark.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 12:42pm

26. Katha Pollitt Posted 6 January 2008 @ 1:42pm TheNation.com

    '...For various reasons, John Edwards, who actually represents the most substantive hope for change, seems in some ways a throwback to the old-fashioned class-based politics of the 1930s. Poor Richardson, who actually has the most experience of any candidate in either party, can't get any traction at all. Obama, the black candidate who never mentions his race, gets to smile his mile-wide smile and be a rock star. Somehow he has made himself a great big humongous hope object. People can project on him what they want him to be. It may not be fair, but then, that's show business....'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/26/2008 @ 12:53pm

27. And how about the way YOU got all those people busted in San Fran when you used their REAL names in your book about hippies, von Hoffman? You're a fine one to accuse the NYT of journalistic sleaze....

    Posted by Jon Swift at 02/27/2008 @ 11:26am