Confirmed! The New York Times is ACTUALLY Plotting to Oust Bush! (actual, first-hand source)

5-18-04

[jmstein7]

Confirmed!  The New York Times is ACTUALLY Plotting to Oust Bush!

Where to begin?  I just got an interesting call from a buddy (a listening post) who works at the Times -- I will keep the name out of this, because I don't to be responsible for someone losing their job.

Anyway, the person is a lurker on FR, and, this morning,

read this activism item I posted last night.  We spoke for a few minutes this morning.

Apparently, Bill O'Reilly had a segment on his show last night where he accused the New York Times of having an agenda to oust Bush -- for example, they have had the Prisoner Abuse story on the front page of the Times for 28 days in a row, even though there has been no news for 10 days (even to the point of relegating the story about the seven terror suspects to the middle pages of the paper).

There was an editors' meeting at the Times this morning.  The O'Reilly piece was a subject of conversation.  But, during the discussion, one of the editors actually said that they would have to alter their "strategy" to be less overt and draw less public criticism from the likes of O'Reilly! 

The editor didn't say specifically that there was a "strategy" to oust Bush, but the editor did imply that there is some sort of strategy "at play" in the Editorial board at the Times.  This is the first time I've heard actual proof of a coordinated effort there to actually campaign against the President and damage him.

So, there you have it -- the New York Times is actually at war with the Bush administration.

I will post more info as I get it.

[hchutch]

This is big... it pretty much affects what folks see on the nightly news from ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Some folks need to hit this hard and fast.

[tm22721]

NPR does much more damage to Bush every day and it is taxpayer funded !!

BUMP

[RandallFlagg]

P.S.
Forget O'Reilly. Send this to Rush.

[Labyrinthos]

(even to the point of relegating the story about the seven terror suspects to the middle pages of the paper).

And the NY Slimes still couldn't resist bashing our President. If I recall correctly, the headline for the page 17 article was something like "Ashcroft Warns Of New Terrorist Threads, But Some Claim Threat Is Overstated." Also, Of the eight front page articles yesterday, six involved our President and all were negative.

[austinite]

Man bites dog! That would be news!

[gilliam]

Some folks need to hit this hard and fast.

60 Minutes?

[Osage Orange]

Unfortunately, there is proof everyday....I didn't need your "LP" to confirm it.

Not meaning to rain on your parade....but I don't think one has to be a mental giant to understand that the U.S. Clymer lamestreamers are DemoLeftistMarxistSocialistLyingLibs to the core....

FRegards,

[EdReform]

BTTT

Meek - GI Ping...

[cartoonistx]

Aside from the overarching evil that is the Times, I see nothing evil here. The Founders intended that a free press would have many "agendas" and their Bill of Rights was written to insure just this type of ability. Of course, it is Bill O's right to expose them for it under that same constitutional amendment's provisions. We become aware and respond accordingly. God's in his heaven, all's right with the fourth estate.

This does not take away from the fact that the NYT is a filthy, lying, traitorous piece of S#/T!

[jmstein7]

I think you will find this interesting.

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"I saw O'Reilly's expose last night (that the Times had run 28 straight days of front-page stories on Abu Gharib)."

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The ironic part...or the sad part is...that O'Reilly just recently came to the realization that the media is biased.

Frankly I think it's somewhat natural to try and defend your own profession....but it's always bothered me that O'Reilly didn't believe it...and vigorously defended his beliefs that the media WASN'T biased.

Oh well...I am just happy he finally "saw the light".....

FRegards,

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[Gator113]

Dear "Lurker",

Thank you for your patriotism. You must feel as though you are at times, between a hard spot and a rock, but what you have done thus far, is the right thing. It is the right thing for you, for your friends and for your Country.

Thank you and God Bless.

[FrankR]

A tree cannot produce fruit if you cut off its branches.

It was also mentioned on O'Reilly last night that the NYT syndicates its news to hundreds of other papers...

...so, it's a cinch that the NYT is not going to give the time of day to a "letter to the editor" from Alabama or North Dakota...but, there are papers in Alabama, North Dakota, and other states which run the NYT garbage.

If you see a NYT tag line on a story, flood your local paper with letters...they're smaller, and more reactionary to local letters than the NYT would be.

If your paper has an "opinons" or "readers comments" section, get your opinion on that too. The largest impact that forums like FR has, is that it let's "closet" conservatives know that they are not alone...that there are other people who think like they do.

The media would have people believe that if they believe in God, go to Church, or vote for W, then they "must be evil". We will have to fight back.

Use email...skip that new VCR and have brochures printed and hand them out...do whatever you can. In my years of selling advertising, the biggest objection I always heard is "You can't beat the word of mouth"...that's true...but it's the slowest form of advertising there is.

In some grocery stores, restaurants, etc., there are bulletin boards where you can post items...stick a brochure there.

Bumper stickers like "Don't vote for a gigelo"...anything; use the libs tact against them...give the reasons for NOT voting for lord effin...and there are many.

[jcb8199]

wow...

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Agree with everything said on this post and just thought I'd echo something said last night on O'Reilly.

The point is that (for reasons that are at best historical) there is a huge echo effect due to the Slimes because so many other print and non-print media decide what is news based on what the Slimes decides as news. Why this is, I really don't know, but it is an established fact that is stipluated to by all sides.

Just because someone doesn't read the Slimes, doesn't mean the Slimes isn't filtering their news.

So this is a bigger story than just *a* newspaper has a biased approached to the news.

This is much more like Pravda in the old USSR - due to the influence on other news organizations and sources.

[Landru]

"So, there you have it -- the New York Times is actually at war with the Bush administration."

Youuuuu'reeee kidding?!
Who'd a thunk it.

Tell us, aside from this insider?

...was there anything else tipping ya off? {g}

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I was over reading this piece, and I wondering if there might be a connection:

Soros' "Reform" (or: How George Soros Bought the Democratic Party)