It used to be that we called this "putting the cart before the horse." Given this illustrious example, I think it's fair to update that ancient adage to a more appropriate form for the New York Times:
Which is entirely appropriate, considering that this seems to be the only kind of "reporting" that the Times thinks is appropriate for our current occupant of the White House. And that seems kinda odd, considering how they're devoted to covering "all the news that's fit to print," and all.
Says the Johnny-come-Latelys over on Eighth Avenue:
Mr. Gibbs said the administration was preparing to release lists of White House visitors — from people attending policy meetings to donors taking tours of the Oval Office — that would include friends of the first family and contributors. He said special favors had not been extended to donors, insisting that the transparency and ethics rules would be stricter than in previous administrations.
A denial which seems somewhat odd, considering that the Times hadn't covered the controversy over the Obama's paid visitors before now.
But hey, you know what they always say:—Different strokes for different folks.
Especially when the "folks" aren't Republicans any more.
Update: Geez, I feel like I'm speaking backwards here. Sorry for the horrible writing. That's what I get for trying to hurry and snark all at once. To make up for this whole mess, allow me to resubmit the following, far simpler report:
The New York Times has issued a screaming denial from the White House about whether or not paid donors are being given preferential access to the facilities over there. And that's nothing short of hilarious, considering that the Times didn't even bother to cover the story in the first place.
Booyah! Hope that works better for all y'all. I'll try not to write such awful dreck next time!