As usual, the NY Times decided to truncate a little bit of what he said in
order to put their "slant" on things. See for yourself:
--------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times:
As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines"
Bush:
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving."
----------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times:
but "rarely read the stories." The people who brief him on current events
encounter many of the newsmakers personally, he said, and in any case
"probably read the news themselves."
Bush:
"I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably
reading the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national
security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the
world stage."
---------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times:
Some of this may be a pose that is designed to tweak the media by making the
news appear to be below the president's notice. During the Iraqi invasion,
when the rest of the nation was glued to TV, Mr. Bush's spokesman claimed
that his
boss had barely glanced at the pictures of what was going on.
Bush:
I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid
democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot
of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...appreciate people's
opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news
is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people
on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.
(The NY Times chose not to quote the President's reason for not reading the
paper. Instead, they gave their own "spin" as to why he doesn't read the
paper.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
See, Barry? The NY Times article that you cite is a perfect example of
"opinions mixed in with news". Do you dispute the President's assertion
that the media mixes opinions in with news?
If you watched the Brit Hume interview or read the transcript
(
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98111,00.html), you'd get a very
different picture than the one the NY Times is trying to paint.
Just remember...consider the source. The NY Times has been caught lying on
several occasions lately. Maureen Dowd has been publicly reprimanded for
truncating or distorting quotes to fit her argument. Apparently, the entire
editorial staff seems to have the same problem.