I would URGE you to send a post on this bent to the ombudsman...not that it will do any good.
So what anti-Bush hit piece is on the front page instead? It's the Slimes. It's gotta be Bush's fault somehow. It's always Bush's fault. /sarcasm
you can only throw sh1t against the wall so long.
simple mechanics,it being the sh1t won't stick any more.
reality of chesise nature,a substrate must be pourous[ie the ability to hold on to something applied.]
here at fr we are impervious to having sh1t stuck to us.
now the rest of dumbdom can'thold on to much more application.
sorry just science.
GODBLESS US ALL!
Wow. Just makes you want to take Bill Keller and chain him to a bunk with Maureen Dowd's 2X panties on his head. Or maybe they're his own panties... hard to tell with metrosexuals.
... I think.
Seriously, excellent job of research, hope the blogs pick it up.
We saw how well the LA Times's full-court press worked in that California election. Let's see how the mothership of liberal bias does in its attempt.
It's been a while since I played basketball, but ISTR that the coach would call the full-court press when our side was losing. Food for thought.
Criminal Number 18F
No Abu Ghraib story on page one today? I guess they just don't care about the story. How callous of them!
An interesting observation. I believe Bill O'Reilly made a similar observation about a week ago, but I'm glad that you followed up on it.
This should be significant to those who still are under the impression that the NYT is the unbiased center of the media world.
To the rest of us, its a nice tidy statistic that can easily be presented to demonstrate that the media does have an agenda.
I saw an article that said the only other story that got the same type of page 1 exposure was Watergate. The funny part: Abu Ghraib is already history (and 61% of Americans thought the coverage was overblown). Hehehehe....
Something to keep in mind is that every morning the NY Times has a meeting with their editors. To date, they have refused to publish transcriptions of those meetings even though they have demanded that corporations and government decision makers be more open to them and to the public.
Do they have something to hide in those meetings (such as demands that their underlings "get Bush")?! Absolutely.
Nonetheless, this provides us with low-hanging fruit to grab over and over again. Every letter that we write to and about them, every phone call that we make and every interview that conservatives give, we can demand that the NY Times' editors make their daily meetings public.
What is it that the NY Times Editors are deciding in smoke-filled back-rooms??
The public has a right to know.
My streak of not even reading the NY Times stands at 12 years, three months, 17 days, four hours, and 10 minutes.
So wucking phut. Let us hope something bad happens to them.
So where is the coverage by the NY Slimes on the Benghazi, Libya Terrorist attack in which FOUR of our people have been killed?