The NYT versus Charlie Rangel

Posted by: ST on December 4, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Things are heating up between Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and the NYT. The NYT has done some surprisingly good reporting on Rangel’s penchant for quid pro quo. Rangel responded to a recent article by writing a letter to the editor trying to debunk what reporter David Kocieniewski. Here’s what Rangel wrote – but it gets really interesting as the NYT included Kocieniewski’s response to Rangel’s letter on the same page.

Now, if the NYT had devoted this much time to investigating Barack Obama’s background, we might just be looking at President McCain right now … or Clinton, depending on whether or not they would have started their investigations early on in Obama’s candidacy.

Anyway, a rare tip of the hat to the NYT for a job well done on this one.

Update – 9:57 PM: More trouble for Rangel, via The Politico: Rangel son got campaign cash

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 Responses to “The NYT versus Charlie Rangel”


  1. camojack says:

    The “Old Grey Lady” ain’t dead yet.

    But I do think I’ve heard the proverbial “Fat Lady” warming up… :-?

  2. Leslie says:

    Time for Charlie to go. Can’t happen soon enough.

    Full disclosure: I’m in his district.

  3. Great White Rat says:

    a rare tip of the hat to the NYT for a job well done on this one

    I don’t think so. The NYT knows exactly what it’s doing. This is window-dressing, nothing more.

    Charlie Rangel has one of the safest congressional seats in the nation. He could molest small children at high noon on the Capitol steps with the cameras rolling and he would be re-elected with 98% of the vote. Nothing the NYT could publish would jeopardize his seat or his power as chairman of the Ways and Means committee. So it’s safe to investigate him and report on unethical practices.

    If Rangel’s district were more competitive, to the point where disclosures like this might defeat him, this story would never get into print. Especially before Election Day. The proof? Look at the amount of time they spent probing Obama’s background over the past two years – or, as ST notes, the lack of effort there.

    If he were a conservative, not only would this story be printed, but it would be above the fold for days on end. Especially right before Election Day.

    This isn’t the NYT doing their job well. It’s a facade they’re using to pretend they’re really an objective news source. I’ll believe that when they criticize a left-wing Democrat in a meaningful way before the votes are cast, and not until then.