New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie still might be considering a run at the White House, so the New York Times is covering him accordingly. Today’s installment: Christie’s trip to Canada to promote the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s a perfect example of campaign journalism—and not in a good way.
The piece by Michael Barbaro (12/4/14) tells us that Christie has given Keystone a “bear-hugging embrace,” quoting the governor as saying it “should have been approved a long time ago” and that oil pipelines are safe. The Times also notes that Keystone is an issue that “has united a fractious Republican Party.” To the paper, this is all about Christie’s political calculation:
As Mr. Christie weighs a presidential run, his trip here seemed calibrated to appeal to two crucial Republican constituencies: the elite corporate donors who loathe President Obama’s inaction on the pipeline, and the grassroots Republican activists who are convinced that it is vital to American energy independence.
The article also explains that Keystone is part of Christie’s “continental” foreign policy vision, emphasizing US ties to Canada and Mexico.
And the piece also points out that
on an issue that has divided Canadians and Americans, Mr. Christie seemed disinclined to hear from opponents, speaking only to a corporate crowd heavily invested in the project’s approval. “You won”t find any protester in here,” said Robert Merrifield, Alberta’s representative to the United States.
The Times has the very same disinclination; it’s a piece ostensibly about what it calls “the most contested cross-border energy project in a generation.” Yet it quotes no opponents or critics of Keystone XL, who might have some thoughts about the safety of pipelines, the effect the project might have on climate change, the destruction of Canadian forests or the notion that Keystone has much to do with “energy independence“—part of Christie’s sales pitch.
That’s because journalism like this doesn’t actually try to focus on the very important issues under discussion; it’s mostly concerned with what a politician’s rhetoric reveals about his possible strategy for a campaign that doesn’t yet exist. Indeed, the article—with its references to Christie’s “low-key and humble tone,” his supposed foreign policy vision and even his joke about “my friend Donald Trump”—is not much different than what you’d expect to read it were written by a member of Christie’s PR team.
Christy is a globalist. Bring on the Americas Union and open our borders. Easy position to go along with the elite eh?
Leave it to FAIR to spot the New York Times’s infatuation with Christie. Uncritical articles about him have been appearing there frequently, often on the front page, and several recent Times editorials have praised him lavishly. For instance, these two pro-Christie pieces were in the Sunday, November 23, issue:
1) “A Deep 2016 Presidential Field Reflects Party Divisions,” by Michael Barbaro and Jonathan Martin has a photo of Christie above one of Jeb Bush, mentions Christie before Bush, and has nothing critical to say about Christie.
2) The Magazine has him on its cover and a glowing tribute by Mark Leibovich. “After months of uncertain footing,” says Leibovich, Christie has ”charted an artful comeback.”
Does this mean his deviousness has been refuted or just ignored by the New York Times?
The Times itself noted in an editorial of 4/12/12 that Christie misrepresented an attempt to provide two new rail passages under the Hudson River that would have “vastly improved the region’s economy, the environment and the lives of millions of commuters.” According to the editorial, “Christie estimated that the project could cost more than $14 billion, of which New Jersey would have had to pay 70 percent . . .” In fact, the state’s share was 14.4 percent.
Leibovich makes no mention of the insufficient commuter train service now inching along under the Hudson River through two 100-year-old tunnels, nor that the new tunnel project Christie misrepresented would have provided twice as many trains during rush hours.
In September, 2013, two George Washington Bridge lanes were closed by former Port Authority official David Wildstein, “turning the borough of Fort Lee, N.J., into a parking lot for four days,” with emergency vehicles delayed “in responding to three people with heart problems and a missing toddler,” according to a Times article by Kate Zernike (1/8/14). Wildstein has stated that it was done on “the Christie administration’s order,” and that Christie had knowledge of it while the lanes were closed, contrary to what Christie has said publicly.
Given its assumption that Governor Christie is a viable candidate for President in the 2016 campaign, shouldn’t the Times at least make an attempt to follow up on these allegations?
It is hard for me to imagine Christie, who should probably be in prison, as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. If he succeeds, it will be the media that put him there.
About all we have left to tell us the truth these days is FAIR, which just now is in serious financial need. So if you don’t want some Republican fat cat in the White House in 2016, best cough up now.
A New York newspaper in bed with a New Jersey politician? Shocking.
@JohnQ – “If he succeeds, it will be the media that put him there.”
Welcome to how the world works.
@TeeJae — Your’re right, of course, but given the effort the went into my comment on a serious matter, you’re also a tad fatuous.