The New York Times. Who would have believed that a major American newspaper would disseminate the enemy's propaganda? Now wonder the stock price has been tanking.
I think that now we know why institutional investors are dumping their Times stock. They must have gotten a sniff of the filth Arthur Sulzberger had planned.
New York Times shares slid 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $18.48 at 4:04 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, the lowest since January 1997. The stock has declined 24 percent this year.
At some point financial reality will have to overcome the traitorous ideology of the editors and publishers.
Does anybody still doubt the neccessity of Islamofascism Awareness Week?
18 comments:
your right... getting out both sides of the story is traitorous.
and believe what you want, but newspapers across the country are in decline because of sagging print advertisement revenues and lower circulation... most likely due to web based news, not content.
The New York Times and it's west coast equivalent, the LA Times have contributed to their declines by marginalizing themselves. The ideological extremity of both papers repels potential customers.
The concept of "getting out both sides" is only situationally virtuous to the left. Columbia University will give a podium and a microphone to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but has kept military recruiters off campus for years. I think it was yesterday or the day before that disbarred attorney and terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart gave a lecture on legal ethics at Hoftra. But I doubt that Alberto Gonzalez would be permitted to use a drinking fountain there.
I will say this about the NY Times, it has always been sympathetic to America's enemies. The legendary Walter Duranty was a publicist for Stalin and helped hide the Ukrainian genocide from the world's view.
Which is, of course, why the NYT is one of the most respected and credible (if not the most) newspapers in the world.
While you may claim that the NYT marginalizes themselves think about this, it is often the views expressed on this blog which are in the minority (see Iraq, wiretapping, healthcare, to name a few) so when you say they are marginalizing themselves you apparently mean to the majority of America, and to those who want credible and investigative news, as opposed to a mouthpiece for conservatives (FOX News for example).
Whatever credibility and respect the Times still enjoys is vestigial. Today's New York Times places on its front page stories like this famous fake but accurate piece and publishes crap like this in its magazine.
So let me see, for the first story the NYT reported that the memos were fake, and then included that the secretary believed they represented the beliefs of the commander. That is called reporting both sides of the story to me; it discredits the memos and incldues the secretaries memory of what the commander thought. If you want to blame anybody for that blame CBS.
For the second story she was absolutly wrong to do that. Unfortunetly however, every news organization which has ever existed has at least one person like that I'm sure.
I'm not sure however, how either of those are supposed to show that the NYT isn't one of the most respected and credible papers in the world. Do you happen to have an alternative which is as credible that you prefer (published in the US would be preferable for the sake of comparison, but if you prefer an international paper I'd be curious to hear what it is).
Truth: Is your majority/minority idea based on your own experience or through polling? I am guessing that you are attempting to claim the majority opinion, though you have no basis for the claim. Similar to the global warming consensus and the Hillary Clinton landslide.
"Fake but accurate" - The New York Times standard for all the news that fit to print. Meanwhile, the New York Times has not yet informed its readers that Chuck Schumer's office was involved in an identity theft scandal last year against a political opponent.
Yep, that's one quality newspaper.
April, my majority/minority comments are based off of opinion polls, if you want to find them they are all at pollingreport.com (its a site which presents polls taken by all of the major polling/news organizations).
Michael, has anybody reported on Chuck Schumer? Is that really a fair critique of the NYT, or is it a better critique of the media as a whole. And furthermore you seem to enjoy slogans, but didn't actually address the fact that the "fake but accurate" story is actually a pretty balanced story which a slightly unusual title.
Oh, and I'd still be interested in an alternative newspaper which is as credible if you have one.
Mike,
How about their recent failure to cover all of Lt. General Sanchez's speech?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/washington/12cnd-general.html?pagewanted=all
Not one word in there as to what Sanchez had to say about the media. I guess it hit too close to home.
"has anybody reported on Chuck Schumer?"
Yes, other papers have reported on Chuckie Schumer's criminality. The Washington Post and the Washington Times reported as did other New York papers. New Yorkers who rely exclusively upon the Times for their news have no idea of their state's senior US senator's involvement in a felony. That says something about the Times, don't you think?
Yes, it shows that you have sucessfully found a story not covered by the NYT. Congrats. I mean really, do you expect any news organization to cover everything, much less everything you want covered. Trully what exactly are you looking for when you read the news? Are they supposed to attack the democrats just on principle, do you want to be able to trust 95%+ of what they are printing (at least), do you want something which reports on all stories?
My personal observation from reading people's posts on this blog, is that conservatives hate the NYT because they publish stories about many of the more unethical happenings with the war and the Bush administration (wiretappings anyone), and some perceived bias. I could go into how, as a partisan, you are more sensitive to pick out and remember negative stories than you are positive stories, but it's really not worth it.
I would however still be interested in knowing if you have another paper, or even another news organization, which has the credibility and general non-bias as the NYT?
Such credibility as the Times still possesses exists only on the leftist margins - those who would rather not know that Chuck Schumer is a crook, or that one of New York City's residents won the Congressional Medal of Honor. Which is one reason why the Times' readership and stock price are down.
And I maintain that the NYT is respected globally as one of the most credible sources of news in the world. Rather than only being accepted on the left it is in fact accepted by everybody except those on the right, for the reason (as I stated before) that conservatives don't feel that Bush should be forced to explain or defend his actions as all other presidents have had to do. In other words, you're pissed that the NYT broke the wiretapping scandal, and rather than try to actually accept that Republicans can make mistakes, you prefer to attack anybody and anything who brings up a contradictory opinion.
What is better however, is that I have asked you 3 times now for a news organization which you feel is credible, and you haven't been able to provide me with one, not a single one. As such, I'd like to ask again, do you have a news source which you believe is more credible than the NYT which you prefer to read, or do you prefer just to attack everything without providing alternatives.
Just to give you an example of how credible a newspaper the New York Times is not, why did it take a west coast paper to discover Hillary Clinton's suspicious fundraising right under the Times' nose?
It was the Wall Street Journal that discovered Norman Hsu's sleeze, again under the New York Times' nose. And it was the Washington Post and Washington Times that led the way on the Clinton's fundraising from the Chinese military.
Starting backwards, you may note that all of those articles say both that no politican has been found to have knowingly taken money from the Chinese military/intelligence, and that this seems to be more of a plan by China rather than something which was ever implemented. If I had to guess why the NYT didn't lead the charge on this, I'd guess that its becuase the editors didn't feel like it was worth the space to print. I mean, the Post only ran 4 articles on the story throughout a year. Difference of opinion on what's important.
Furthermore, I think the reason the NYT didn't originally run anything about the fundraising problems Clinton has now, is becuase they would then be obligated in the interest of fairness to run something on all of the candidates (because lets be honest, all of the candidates have likely engaged in some form of unethical fundraising). But again, I can't tell you for sure the reason, just note however that the only articles on suspicious fundraising that the NYT has run recently have been against Clinton, none against anybody else, which logically should make you believe its a conservative paper.
Still no alternative papers though huh?
Truthy,
Someday, Jon Stewart is going to retire. Are you auditioning, or just practicing?
Absolutely amazing! Three weeks after Media Matters issued its smear of Rush Limbaugh and Limbaugh posted a recording and transcript of his remarks proving that Media Matters lied, the New York Times is still repeating the lie.
Yep! The New York Times is one classy newspaper. Just ask the Duke lacrosse team.
Fun times (no pun intended):
http://www.timeswatch.org/
Post a Comment