In an interview on Monday arranged by Republican strategists...

It's not "strategists" that bothers me so much. Advisor or consultant or Public Relations firm would have read similar.

It's all about signalling that the criticism is political, and not substantive.

Yet, we've had legitimate concerns, and questions, and details come out of non-political sources too. And, there's nothing inherently political about the guys who served with him.

You see the same thing with headlines. "Republicans raise questions about... " It's a way of diminishing what may be legitimate concerns.

 

Maybe because they complain about everything because their sole goal with this president was to make him a one-termer?

 

That's politics. It's no different than what's happened with the opposition party in every previous presidency.

It's no different than how the party that holds the WH treats the opposition party in every previous presidency.

But, this one time, the Times decided to tell us how it got the interview.

 

That interview "event" was the very definition of "inherently political." It was specifically meant to counter the "inherently political" Rose Garden event welcoming Bergdahl home.

I find it very troubling that you view "Republican point of view" as a way of diminishing credibility.

 

No. I don't see it that way, but the Times was signalling that to its readers.

And, sure the Rose Garden event was a PR/Political event. Did the Times portray it as such?

 

I don't know. Did the Times portray "Mission Accomplished" as such?

The top news peg changes a bit when the leader of the free world, or any other elected official, is involved.

If someone like John McCain was recruited to spearhead the "interview event" - making it more than just strategists circle-jerking - I'm positive that the coverage would've differed significantly.

 

Every opposingparty's goal is to make the president a one-termed, but they don't flat-out announce it and refuse to work with them on even the most minor issues.

This Congress has done the least among any Congress in history.

 

Cuts both ways. The President refused to work with Congress as well.
This was very clear during the budget negotiations as was well documented
in Woodward book-- Price of Politics.

As example from book two weeks after inauguration:

“I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now.” He then told Cantor, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.”

Obama was also known for his catchphrase early in Presidency: “I’d be willing to be a one-term president over this.”

 

The AP gets in on the act. LOL:

Three former members of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon spoke to The Associated Press on Tuesday about Bergdahl’s disappearance, his freedom and how he should be treated now that he’s out. The interviews were facilitated by a public relations firm, Capitol Media Partners, co-owned by Republican strategist Richard Grenell.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/03/unit-comrade-bergdahl-was-that-one-guy-that-wanted-to-disappear/

 

Which shows he was willing to work with them even though he didn't have to.

 

This is one of the dumbest things to criticize a paper for and says more about your own biases against the media than it does about the newspaper. Should they report these things every time? Yes. Does your search prove that they have never done it? No. I googled "Newt Gingrich" praises "bill on welfare reform" site:nytimes.com, and I got nothing. So does that mean Gingrich never praised a welfare reform bill? No. It means I used the wrong search criteria because I wanted to make a point on a message board. It would be impossible to prove your assertion wrong without combing through tons of articles, and I think you know that, which is why you're willing to make asinine assertions asking people to prove you wrong. Has it ever happened? I don't know. Can you state that it hasn't and know you're correct? Not if you are being honest. You want it to be true, so you assume it is.

 

I'll take one example. Just one.

And, it wouldn't be such a jarring example if I had ever seen anything similar.

Even if you can't point to a specific example, do you have any recollection of seeing something like this before?

Maybe in some, after the fact, "how they got the story" article, it would come up. But I can't ever remember reading something like this in a straight news article.