Ahhh, they’re 1920’s style “Death Gays”.
(Sorry, I’ve always wanted to say that!)
*Originally posted by Squink *
** I don’t see the suggestion that the budget is designed to favor groups that the administration wishes to curry favor with as an admission of “rank partisan motives.” Budgets have always been done with the constituents in mind, and they should be. **
Interesting view. Whatever its validity, do you really think Bush administration officials actually said that its proposed budget was “designed to favor those groups with whom the administration hopes to curry favor”? The issue raised in the OP has nothing to do with whether the Times’ analysis is correct. I’ve simply questioned the accuracy of the assertion that the administration itself had made the remarks attributed to it by the paper. That seems to me almost inconceivable.
The problem, I suppose, might be that the Times’ reporting isn’t so much biased as it is simply crappy.
I rather fancy the Bush administration will notify all and sundry if this was a grievous misquotation.
Actually, that article isn’t an editorial, but rather the report of the ombudsman or “Public Editor” for the Times. Here’s the article in full (free registration may be required). The Public Editor’s position is different from that of the rest of the staff. He introduced himself on December 7 and said he will work for only one year, so he won’t be pressured to please the editors to keep his job. His job is to answer the criticisms and complaints of the readers and make corrections when necessary. Ombudsmans have been popping up in the media since the Jayson Blair scandal - in fact, I’m surprised the Times didn’t get one sooner.
SM: Thanks for the correction. I just assumed it was an editorial since it was on the editorial page. It sure seems like it would be less confusing if they titled the artile “A Report From the Public Editor of the NYT”.
I don’t blame you for making that assumption if it did appear on the editorial page. (I don’t get the paper, I just read it online.) It should be clearly marked as a commentary on the paper rather than an editorial. Perhaps you should e-mail him with that suggestion. 
First of all, rewriting someone said, especially when it is an unnamed source, is rather common. Of course the sense must be preserved, but it cannot be a quote unless it is a direct quote. I can imagine the source confirming that the fact it is an election year playing a part in this. Do you think it being an election year had no part in this?
Also, the quote did not say that the budget would advance the interests of Republican consituencies, just not alienate them.
How do you know that the reporter did not ask about the tie to the election, and the source confirm it? Neither side to this conversation was stupid. (I might not like the Republicans in the White House, but politically stupid they are not.) Don’t you think that the source saying this budget had nothing to do with the election would fail the laugh test?
Oh good grief. Of course a Bush official would not say this for attribution, but this was on background, remember. I’m shocked, shocked, that someone would say or imply that they weren’t going to make a budget proposal that hurts the people who voted for them. I rather expect the same sort of article ran in 1996, when it was Clinton’s budget.
In any case, perhaps the reason for this backgrounder was to assure the Republican consituency that the cuts were not going to hurt them.