Skip to comments.Should Conservatives Give The New York Times a Break?
Posted on 08/06/2005 2:11:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
Yeah! Break their cojones!!!
Do you mean the famine in the Ukraine?
Leopard never change their spots.
They would have to prove it by performance , after about 50 years, I might give them the benefit of doubt.
How you feeling?
Mighty glad to see you're fracture hasn't slowed you down.
Well, they're not reporting on the Air America scandal, are they?
Keep their feet to the fire.
What's a matter, NY Slimes? Losing money? Crash and burn! Maybe there's some kind and old hearted socialists that will let you move in with them and let you shove crap out of the barn for the collective.
He may want to change things, but it's not going very well. Someone over there should be terminated for the Roberts adoption thing. There should be new people hired if they want a different perspective, just attempting to change those who are already there is not enough and will never work.
Should Reagan have given Gorby a breaK? Should Dubya give Osama a break? I literally believe that the NY Times is a less trustworthy pub than the National Enquirer.
I respect action, not empty words.
The paper covered up both, and the family should rot in hell.
Is Keller or the NYT's even *aware* that Malkin & Powerline have been kicking their butts all over the internet for the last few weeks?
How did they fix you up?
Cast it or plate and screw's.
Their attitudes wouldn't change. They think they're too smart to learn anything from us lowly rubes & they would be too busy expending their energy in trying to get us to adopt their world view to listen. Someone needs to create a 12 step kind of program for them. Then the problem comes with trying to come up with enough people they respect to do their intervention or they won't realize they need the program, specially since most of the people they associate with are akin to a drunks bar buddies.
Buying your local paper is usually just another contribution to the DNC.
The NYTimes is beyond help.
That's NOT gonna do it!
Oddly, non-sophisticated readers can easily tell there isn't any distinguishing difference between the two.
Ever since the Sulzbergers sold their souls to Felix Dherzinsky and became Joe Stalin's paper of record in 1930s. The Times "newsroom" has been a cesspool of useful idiots and fellow travelers busy sucking up to their masters, at every opportunity. Even with the fall of the Soviet Union, old habits die hard.
I commented last night on the fact that the New York Times has yet to run a single word on the Air America scandal. I gently surmised that this might have something to do with the paper's biases, or, perhaps, the fact that investigating Air America would require work--you know, actual investigation--as opposed to merely quoting Democratic Party officials.
It turns out that I wronged the Times, and I apologize for underestimating the paper's investigative capability. It turns out that the Times is still capable of investigating wrongdoing. In fact, it has been busily investigating John Roberts' children, aged five and four.
I can't add much to what Drudge and Michelle Malkin have written. The Times admits that it has been checking into the adoption of Roberts' children, as Drudge reported. As usual, the Times denounces Drudge, but doesn't identify anything he wrote which is incorrect. Worst of all, the paper describes its investigation into the Roberts children's adoptions as "initial inquiries" which "detected nothing irregular about the adoptions." Apparently the investigation came up dry and was suspended.
The Times explained further that "We report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office," implying that checking into "irregularities" in adoptions is something they do for "any nominee or candidate for high public office." I really wonder about that. I'd be curious to know when the Times last investigated the "regularity" of an adoption by a Democratic office-seeker.
In any event, now that the Times' investigation into John Roberts' four and five year old children has fizzled out and been abandoned, can they free up some resources to start checking into Air America's financial chicanery?
UPDATE: Brit Hume reports:
The New York Times (search) has been asking lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two adopted children.
Sources familiar with the matter told FOX News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.
Post 73: Powerline just disemboweled the NY Slimes with a straight razor.
And Malkin (who never seems to sleep):
Number of NY Times articles mentioning Air America since March 2004: 59
Number of NY Times articles mentioning the Air Enron scandal: 0
It seems we're not the only ones monitoring the MSM's near-total blackout of Air America's financial shenanigans. New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame (email@example.com) is "closely watching" the Air America story and how it is handled by the paper, according to an e-mail sent by Mr. Calame's assistant to a Power Line reader.
Fortunately, plenty of others are covering the story while the Times twiddles its thumbs. The latest:
Investor's Business Daily
New York Post
Hugh Hewitt (Hugh's new Daily Standard column is here).
Leon H. at Macho Nachos has a follow up on Air America and legal matters
Scrappleface spoofs: "Air America Hires Dan Rather as Scandal Spokesman"
The New York Sun's David Lombino is undoubtedly digging further.
And, of course, Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer remains the first and last stop for news and analysis.
The conclusion of Hugh's Daily Standard column today is worth repeating:
We know a lot about the medications Rush Limbaugh has taken.
We know a great deal about Bill O'Reilly's troubles.
But thus far we don't know much about how Al Franken got paid the big bucks last year, when all of the mainstream media seemed to be cheering his debut.
Last month, the Times's executive editor, Bill Keller, trumpeted the newspaper's new committment to "to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
Exactly, whatever happened to diversity in the workplace
This comment no doubt has encouraged any number of NYT reporters to begin writing a series of articles examining such varied personalities as Mao Tse-tung, Karl Marx, and Fidel Castro.
The moral equivalency stated in the article suggests that conservative viewpoints are just as deserving as liberal viewpoints. No conservative should ascribe to such nonsense. So-called "conservative" viewpoints are rational and correct and liberal viewpoints are irrational and incorrect.
The only outcome for which conservatives should hope is that the NYT suffers an embarassing bankruptcy, laying off their undeserving and unemployable staff, and refunding subscription and advertising money.
Sometimes it is best to "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" Should be fun.
a break?!?! Not just no, HELL NO!
The NYT should cease all publication.
Its history of pandering to the left has long abdicated its right to continue.
There is only one problem with your final statement, based on some of the humor here, most of the staffers have no "their women". Lamnantations of their girly men does not have the same ring.
Seriously though, you are right you can not save or redeme the NYT. It has to be eliminated and shut down PERMANENTLY.
Hang in there! It will get better.
Glad you got back so quickly.
Their employees need to be driven from the entire media industry too.
It is not enough for the NYT to close its doors, the employees must never again be given even the TINIEST journalist job.
"Seriously though, you are right you can not save or redeme the NYT. It has to be eliminated and shut down PERMANENTLY."
Nah, I prefer to see them twist in the wind. Their campaign of disinformation helps keep the Left lame & lazy. They are one of the reasons liberals haven't had a new idea in the last decade, while conservative philosophy has been through the crucible and come out leaner & meaner.
Hang in there! It will get better.
Glad you got back so quickly.
I'll believe it when they use three dimensions other than stupid, violent, and bigoted.
Really, I'd settle for "an accurate way."
Except that we've heard this old saw from left-wing media many times before just as we hear from the Democrat Party how it must "appeal" to people of faith and people more conservative than they are. And after about 15 minutes of hand-wringing and breast-beating, they go right back to calling us single-chromosome Bible-thumping yahoos with only two functioning neurons.
I particularly love the "inclusive" outreach the local paper does on Sundays where the local religion editor makes sure to write about something offensive to most Christians, whether it be about gay ministers, wacko left churches or people who think this whole Christ thing is just "too extreme". Then when local Christians react negatively, the paper fumes about "Bible-thumping fundies" and goes back to their staple Christian-bashing.
Give the Times a break? Um, no. Not until they show that they are serious about changing themselves and not just bitching about not being understood and accepted by the very people they routinely and reflexively insult.
talk is cheap."
thanks - and great (unintentional?) irony ;)
The liberals can perfectly see a "wall of separation" in the First Amendment where it doesn't exist but they refuse to see a "wall of separation" between news reporting and editorialization that ought to exist.
I think we should give them a break, like 5 minutes and then,
BACK ON YOUR HEADS IN THE PILE OF DUNG YOU GO....
The logic for this response is given by this condescending quote from the article:
our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions
The only legitimate response to this quote is: F**CK YOU!
As far as the New York Slimes is concerned, patriotism, belief in God and a desire for the sanctity of marriage are "unorthodox views and contrarian opinions."
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, are you SERIES? LMAO
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, are you SERIES? LMAO!