Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Devil and the Gray Lady
National Review Online ^ | June 10, 2003 | Mark Goldblatt

Posted on 07/03/2006 8:39:34 AM PDT by Mia T

June 10, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
The Devil & the Gray Lady
All about vogue.

By Mark Goldblatt

SEE NOTE 

 

Truman Capote, who had a stake in saying so, once famously declared, "All literature is gossip." He was wrong, of course, but it's the kind of declaration that bamboozles literary types by its very implausibility; something so obviously false must be profound, so it gets repeated at cocktail parties and invoked in book reviews (like this one) until it becomes an inside-out cliché, a false truism, a knowing nod towards nothing whatsoever.

Still, an interesting question emerges if you reverse Capote's dictum and ask whether all gossip is literature. It's a question that surrounds the most gossipy novel in recent years, The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger, and percolates within the critical jihad the book ignited at the New York Times. The fact that the paper twice reviewed a literary debut by a previously unknown author would be noteworthy in itself; what's unprecedented is the fact that its reviewers twice ripped the book to shreds -- arguing not simply that it fails as literature, but that it should never have been published in the first place.

Why all the fuss?

Weisberger, it seems, once worked as a personal assistant to Vogue editor Anna Wintour, and the novel is thinly veiled account of her nightmarish experiences at the magazine. That this should matter to reviewers at the Times is slightly bizarre -- even if, unlike me, you care about Anna Wintour, or you think Vogue has made a significant contribution to Western Civilization. It's not as though Weisberger is sailing into morally uncharted waters. Saul Bellow's latest work, Ravelstein, is a thinly veiled account of his friendship with the critic Allan Bloom, and arguably Bellow's greatest work, Humboldt's Gift, is a thinly veiled account of his friendship with the poet Delmore Schwartz. Both of Bellow's books are warts-and-all portraits, and the same can be said, in spades, for Weisberger's portrait of Wintour. The fact that Wintour is still alive, whereas Bloom and Schwartz were deceased when Bellow immortalized them, cuts both ways. Wintour may be psychically injured by the appearance of her fictional counterpart, Miranda Priestly, but at least she has the chance to distance herself from the ogre Weisberger gives us. With a nod to Capote, then, if at least some gossip is literature, why should Weisberger be pilloried for engaging in it?

None of which is to suggest that The Devil Wear Prada is great art. It is, rather, a wildly uneven book, by turns clumsily self-righteous and wickedly funny. The wafer-thin plot recounts the struggles of the narrator, Andrea Sachs, to maintain both her integrity and her sanity after she lands a "dream job" as personal assistant to Miranda Priestly at Runway. The detail that Andrea's real ambition is to write for The New Yorker would be a perfect ironic touch -- she must endure the slickness of fashion in order to achieve fashionable slickness -- except that the author seems to regard this as a altogether commendable goal. She is reminded to keep her eyes on the prize by her devoted boyfriend, Alex, who (gag me) teaches underprivileged children; also keeping Andrea grounded is her roommate Lily, whose hard drinking and promiscuity derive from the fact that "she loved anyone and anything that didn't love her back, so long as it made her feel alive."

The chapters with Alex and Lily are at times almost unbearable. Fortunately, they are offset by chapters in which Miranda Priestly takes center stage. Miranda is one of the great comic monsters of recent literature; Cruella de Ville is an obvious antecedent, but Miranda more closely resembles a Hermes-scarf wearing Ahab in pursuit of the great white whale of immediate, absolute indulgence. In Miranda's universe, two pre-publication copies of the latest Harry Potter book must be flown by private jet to Paris so that her twin daughters can read them before their friends; it's up to Andrea to make the arrangements on a moment's notice. Tough, but do-able. More finesse is required when Miranda asks Andrea to hunt down the address of "that antique store in the seventies, the one where I saw the vintage dresser." Of course, Andrea wasn't with Miranda when she saw the dresser, so she winds up trekking to every antique store -- and, just to be safe, every furniture store -- between 70th and 80th Street in Manhattan, grilling clerks to find out whether the famous Miranda Priestly had stopped by recently. Three days later, Andrea admits defeat . . . only to have Miranda inform her, impatiently, that she's just located the store's business card, the one she thought she'd lost. The address is on East 68th Street.

Miranda requires up to five breakfasts per morning so that whenever she arrives at the office, a hot meal will be waiting; reheating isn't an option. The other four must be thrown out because her assistants aren't permitted to eat in her presence. Nor are they permitted to hang their coats next to hers. Nor to request clarifications if her demands are indecipherable: "Cassidy wants one of those nylon bags all the little girls are carrying. Order her one in the medium size and a color she'd like."

There's a kind of grotesque heroism in this, an obliviousness to the feelings of others that is larger than life -- and thus mesmerizing. When Weisberger's novel succeeds, it succeeds on these terms. No one who reads the book will forget Miranda Priestly.

Towards the end of The Devil Wears Prada, Andrea's novelist friend informs her, "What you don't seem to realize is that the writing world is a small one. Whether you write mysteries or feature stories or newspaper articles, everyone knows everyone." Indeed, it's hard for an outsider to grasp just how incestuous, how inbred, the New York publishing scene is nowadays. The odds of finding a non-conflicted reviewer for a gossipy roman a clef about the scene itself are therefore remote. In theory, this isn't a problem -- as long as the reviewer approaches the task in good faith. (In good faith, for example, I should note that Weisberger's former writing teacher is a close friend and co-author of mine; on the other hand, her editor at Doubleday once turned down a book I wrote . . . and keep in mind that I'm really an academic, so I'm kind of bivouacked on the outskirts of the milieu Weisberger describes.) To say that the Times lacked good faith in reviewing The Devil Wears Prada understates the utterly unconscionable, and downright vindictive, way the paper went after the thing.

The onslaught began with a full-page review in its Sunday edition by former Harper's Bazaar editor Kate Betts. Betts herself was once Anna Wintour's protégé, a point Betts mentions in her final paragraph -- not as a disclaimer but rather as an excuse to lecture Weisberger on the ethics of having written her novel: "I have to say Weisberger could have learned a few things in the year she sold her soul to the devil of fashion for $32,500. She had a ringside seat at one of the great editorial franchises in a business that exerts an enormous influence over women, but she seems to have understood almost nothing about the isolation and pressure of the job her boss was doing...."

This may or may not be true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what's between the covers of Weisberger's book. That, however, is the least of Bett's concerns in a review which alternates between sniping at the author and sucking up to former Vogue cronies. "Nobody would be interested in this book," Betts declares, "if Weisberger were spilling the beans about life under the tyrant of the New Yorker." (Tell that to Brendan Gill whose memoir Here at the New Yorker was a bestseller in 1975.) Betts refers to one of Weisberger's characters as "a pale imitation of the incomparable André Leon Talley" (For the record, I know more than a few people in the fashion industry, and they're all remarkably comparable.) and to another as "a cheap shot at the food writer Jeffrey Steingarten, whom she [Weisberger] should have been studying for lessons in how to write." This is nasty stuff. And it's of a piece with the rest of Betts's review -- which displays all the emotional maturity and intellectual balance of Leo Gorcey in the old Bowery Boys films. Betts is not critiquing a work of fiction; she's putting up her dukes to defend her home turf.

You'd think Betts's outburst would suffice, from the Times's point of view, would stand as an awkward lapse in editorial judgment but nothing more. You'd be wrong. The newspaper, it turns out, was not through with Weisberger by a long shot. One day later, Janet Maslin weighed in for the daily edition -- and matched Betts's spitefulness point by point. Maslin's review begins: "If Cinderella were alive today, she would not be waiting patiently for Prince Charming. She would be writing a tell-all book about her ugly stepsisters and wicked stepmother . . . dishing the dirt, wreaking vengeance and complaining all the way. Cinderella may have been too nice for that, but Lauren Weisberger is not."

Again, what's actually between the covers of The Devil Wears Prada is mere background noise; first and foremost, Maslin is reviewing not the novel itself but the idea of the novel. She refers to it as "a mean-spirited 'Gotcha!' of a book, one that offers little indication that the author could interestingly sustain a gossip-free narrative." With an indignant nod towards Weisberger's recent publicity tour, Maslin speculates that the author "can devote a second career to insisting that [the novel] is not exactly, precisely, entirely one long swat at the editor of Vogue." And again: "The book's way of dropping names, labels and price tags while feigning disregard for these things is another of its unattractive qualities. It's fair to assume that nobody oblivious to names like Prada will be reading this story anyway."

Curiously, Maslin neglects to mention the name Anna Wintour even once in her review. "That was very deliberate on my part," she later explained to the Daily News. "I think that when a tell-all author takes a cheap shot at a well-known person -- in a book that would have little reason to attract attention without that cheap shot -- then reviewers need not compound the insult (or help promote a mediocre book) by reiterating the identity of the target."

Fair enough, but then why review the book in the first place? Given how many books are published each year, and how few the Times actually reviews, why would the paper twice in two days go out of its way to hammer a first novel by a hitherto unpublished writer? (Another point of disclosure: The Times did not review my first novel last year.) The answer cannot be that The Devil Wears Prada was heavily promoted . . . since even a cursory glance at its own bestseller lists will reveal many mega-hyped books the Times wouldn't touch with a ten-foot highlighter.

Of course, the Times has bigger problems these days -- Jayson Blair's tendentious, fabricated reporting and subsequent resignation, Howell Raines's white-man's-burden agonizing and subsequent resignation, and Maureen Dowd's sneaky doctoring of a presidential quote -- than the integrity of its book-reviewing process. In another sense, however, the treatment of Weisberger's novel is consistent with, for lack of a better phrase, an absence of adult supervision on 43rd Street.

Mark Goldblatt is the author of Africa Speaks, now available in paperback.


NOTE:

This piece by Mark Goldblatt predates by three years the latest treasonable and terrorist acts by The New York Times.

Of course, the Times has bigger problems these days -- Jayson Blair's tendentious, fabricated reporting and subsequent resignation, Howell Raines's white-man's-burden agonizing and subsequent resignation, and Maureen Dowd's sneaky doctoring of a presidential quote -- than the integrity of its book-reviewing process. In another sense, however, the treatment of Weisberger's novel is consistent with, for lack of a better phrase, an absence of adult supervision on 43rd Street.

June 10, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
The Devil & the Gray Lady
All about vogue.
By Mark Goldblatt
National Review Online

'Pinch' Sulzberger's infantilism appears to have regressed during those three years, a process that defies simultaneously the laws of biology, psychology and the country.

If this process is allowed to continue--that is to say, if President George W. Bush fails to prosecute the Times--the logical endpoint is Pinch in the Old Gray Lady's womb, fully protected, doing his treasonable and terrorist acts with impunity. Indefinitely.

It may, in the end, take al Qaeda, ironically, to stop him. In order to game the First Amendment, you need a First Amendment in the first place. In order to game the First Amendment, you need to be.

 


IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

by Mia T, 6.27.06






"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison




hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington

READ MORE


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; annawintour; devil; devilwearsprada; firstamendment; jackbootthugs; newyorktimes; nyt; pinch; prada; sedition; terrorism; terrorists; thepress; thetimes; treason; vogue; waronterror

1 posted on 07/03/2006 8:39:39 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IVote2

ping


2 posted on 07/03/2006 8:41:22 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

ping


3 posted on 07/03/2006 8:41:48 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freema

ping


4 posted on 07/03/2006 8:42:12 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I hope investors either bail out or can this little boys butt.
5 posted on 07/03/2006 8:45:26 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Only stupid people would vote for McCain, Warner, Hagle, Snowe, Graham, or any RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
the logical endpoint is Pinch in the Old Gray Lady's womb, fully protected....

Another bit of irony....

6 posted on 07/03/2006 8:47:25 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

bump


7 posted on 07/03/2006 8:49:15 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: malia

ping


8 posted on 07/03/2006 8:54:37 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

ping


9 posted on 07/03/2006 8:59:33 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Welcome then to the world of writers and publishers.

Incestuous and cruel are breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Why do you think writers are known for the time they spend ALONE!

Believe me when I say, yes the gray lady/snobs/climbers were out in full force when it came to reviewing and ripping this author and her book, but this has nothing on the teachers of writers and how they treat their students that may in anyway show a sign of being great. Squish squash and exterminate replaces teaching/guidance. It is sad. Just as thoughtful and intelligent book reviews are replaced by social chastising and provincial ice pick throwing.

When you publish a book such as The Devil Wears Prada, you expect there to be a fight--if you don't you have been living under a cooled lava formation. When you are just starting out looking for support and skills, you don't expect this same sort of treatment, but it all starts from the beginning for many. Especially if they are very talented.

Many authors are terrified all the time after a big success. The publishing end of this industry, the marketing and reviewers are actually a very seedy underbelly most of the time. The exception is when it is NOT. I think more people outside of the incestuous circle just saw it more clearly in operation on this book.

10 posted on 07/03/2006 10:10:28 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

The Gray Lady attacked "The Devil in Prada" because, despite being set in the fashion industry, the novel is really about Hillary Clinton.


11 posted on 07/03/2006 11:13:40 AM PDT by AZLiberty (Creating the <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov">straddle</a> Google bomb one post at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
The Devil and the Gray Lady

Same thing.

12 posted on 07/03/2006 11:22:40 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

This sort of thing happens also in other creative disciplines, especially in those whose markers for 'brilliance' are subjective and arbitrary, governed by what is chic rather than by what is transcendent.


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04


eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil." It was, rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004, 2006


13 posted on 07/03/2006 11:44:37 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty

You have a good point.
Anna Wintour. hillary clinton. A distinction without a difference. ;)


14 posted on 07/03/2006 11:48:04 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty

Chicness and elegance aside, of course. ;)


15 posted on 07/03/2006 11:50:22 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Chicness and elegance aside, of course. ;)

Stirring in chicness and elegance was necessary to conceal the true subject. If the author had used the title, "The Devil Wears Pantsuits", she would have been taken on a ride to Fort Marcy Park.

16 posted on 07/03/2006 12:11:52 PM PDT by AZLiberty (Creating the <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov">straddle</a> Google bomb one post at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

BUMP

17 posted on 07/03/2006 12:12:43 PM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Anna Wintour. hillary clinton. A distinction without a difference. ;)

The first item returned by a Google search for "Anna Wintour" AND "Hillary Clinton" includes this interesting quote:

"Anna Wintour's fashion influence extends to celebrities and politicians: because of it, Hillary Clinton underwent a drastic makeover and became the first First Lady to strike a pose on the cover of Vogue in the midst of Monicagate."

18 posted on 07/03/2006 12:29:22 PM PDT by AZLiberty (Creating the <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov">straddle</a> Google bomb one post at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty
;)

The author at one time worked for, and was, thus, abused by, Anna Wintour. This book is a not-so-veiled account of that experience.

As for the Times, I think it's simply the case of Maslin, Sulzberger et al. not wanting to cut off their Armani to spite their Prada, so to speak. ;)


19 posted on 07/03/2006 12:43:39 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
So true.

I get a sense though in the other arts, people generally know this, but they have this sense that writer's just write these neat little stories and these neat little publishers publish the neat little stories and the reviewers write neat, little, thoughtful reviews of the neat little stories that the neat little publishers automatically neatly send the compiled and neatly edited book to the neat little bookstores that put the neat little book on the neat little shelves in the neat little front of the neat little bookstore, preferably in the neat little window.

The neat little publisher does the neat little marketing for the nice little writer who wrote the neat little story and the nice little consumers read the neat little reviews and see the neat little write up on the nice little writer and go to the neat little stores and spend their neat little money on the neat little book and the nice little writer sails smoothly into getting a publisher for the next neat little story.

Not!

20 posted on 07/03/2006 1:02:59 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty

"Anna Wintour's fashion influence extends to celebrities and politicians: because of it, Hillary Clinton underwent a drastic makeover and became the first First Lady to strike a pose on the cover of Vogue in the midst of Monicagate."

 

At the time, I wrote about that Vogue cover:

HILLARY CLINTON'S REVOLUTIONARY ENTERTAINING

 

by Mia T, 04.15.99

 

 
 




illary clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's doxy...at all cost.

Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-hillary-for-President cover.

And now we have hillary clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one).

Seems hillary clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity. (NB: Written years before Martha ImPloded.)

"The clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's (aptly named) Trade Division, the book's publisher.

hillary clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..."

It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above.

On closer inspection, hillary clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism.

It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, of the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers.

For hillary clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton.

Thank heaven for small favors...

Or as the real Martha Stewart would say,
"That is a good thing."


21 posted on 07/03/2006 1:24:44 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Pinch has increased the NY Slimes Corporate Culture of lying to its readers and advertisers to new high. That Corporate Culture for about two years has been hurting the stock value of the Ny Slimes stock, NYT, severely

Even if Freepers aren't concerned about the danger to America caused by the Ny Slimes, if their mutual funds own NYT stock, they should be concerned.

Below is a comparison chart showing what a terrible investment the NY Slimes, NYT, has been for the last two years. For comparison, NYT is compared to MDY, the ETF fund for the mid cap index, and HAL, the "hated and evil" Haliburton.

If your mutual fund owns NYT, sell it or trade it for a fund that doesn't own this liberal loss leader stock. Send a letter to the Fund Manager and CEO of the Mutual Fund Company and tell them you sold the fund.

Then demand to know why they invested your $'s in this turkey.

Next send the SEC a letter with this chart in the letter or attached, and ask them to investigate why the mutual fund invested in NYT. The investment was not in the mutual fund owner's best interest. It helped the NY Slimes to stay afloat and publish seditious articles, and it wasted precious investor investment $'s.

22 posted on 07/04/2006 9:26:14 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Excellent! thanx, Grampa Dave. I'm with you. :)


23 posted on 07/04/2006 9:56:35 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659805/posts

Weekends with the President's men (NYT points out security camera at Rumsfeld's house)
The New York Times ^ | June 30, 2006 | Peter T. Kilborn


Posted on 07/03/2006 11:38:45 AM PDT by xjcsa


JUST an hour and a half from Washington, across the 4.3-mile Chesapeake Bay Bridge, or less than 30 minutes in a government-issue Chinook helicopter, is the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the primly groomed waterside village of St. Michaels.

St. Michaels has begun to lure V.I.P.'s who, some boosters would have it, could propel it into the gilded realm of the Hamptons and Nantucket. But that will take a while. There's little for the young — just a few bars and no beaches or nightclubs — and these new householders are too circumspect and perhaps too old to be showcasing their excesses, baubles and abs.

One is Vice President Dick Cheney, 65, who paid $2.67 million last September for a house that resembles a wide, squat Mount Vernon. Another is his old friend Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, 73, who in 2003 paid $1.5 million for a brick Georgian that was last a bed-and-breakfast. Among other recognizable owners in the area are Tony Snow, President Bush's new press secretary; Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's presidential campaign manager in 2004; Nicholas Brady, President George H. W. Bush's treasury secretary; and John S. D. Eisenhower, a writer and historian and the son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659805/posts


24 posted on 07/04/2006 11:02:00 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Grampa Dave
Leakers... traitors... and now terrorists.
If this doesn't convince Bush that the Times is a clear and present danger and must be prosecuted, nothing will.

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison


 

When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

READ MORE

 

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

by Mia T, 6.27.06

PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, 06.26.06

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, December 29, 2005

The Devil & the Gray Lady
By Mark Goldblatt, June 10, 2003, 9:30 a.m.

 

26 posted on 07/07/2006 7:23:50 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
INSTRUCTIONS FROM Grampa Dave:

 

Want to smash the NY Slimes?
Check your mutual funds to see if they own NYT, the NY Slimes Stock

 

 

How many of us own mutual funds which own NY Slimes stock and even worse have increased their NYT holdings this year.

NYT investment by a mutual fund company is a terrible investment re the dollar loss in Stock value the last 2 years. Those investments are an attempt to keep the NY Slimes afloat with our mutual fund $'s.

Now it is very evident that the NY Slimes is an agent and abettor of the al Qaeda Serial Killers. The Slimes is endangering the lives of our families, friends, innocent Americans and every warrior of ours.

Go to this link to see if your mutual fund owns NYT.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp

When the MS Money stock home page comes up, enter NYT into the search area and hit enter and the following screen will show up re ownership of the NY Slimes stock:

The New York Times Company: Ownership Information

  • Shares Outstanding 145.00 Mil

  • Institutional Ownership (%) 83.40

  • Top 10 Institutions (%) 58.60

  • Mutual Fund Ownership (%) 42.64

  • 5%/Insider Ownership (%) 7.77

  • Float (%)

Highlight the Mutual Fund Ownership and hit enter.

If thousands of Freepers, whose mutual funds own shares of NY Slimes did the following:

  1. Sell those mutual funds or trade them for funds not owning NYT.

  2. Send a letter to the fund managers and the CEO's of the mutual fund company telling them why you sold/transferred their mutual fund owning NY Slimes stock. Then demand to know why they are wasting your precious $'s on a treason/sedition company which is a terrible investment.

  3. Contact the SEC to investigate why this mutual fund and mutual fund company invested your $'s in one of the worse investments of the past 2 years. Was the investment of yours and others a political bailout of the NY Slimes.

  4. Send this how to re Mutual Funds with NYT stock to everyone on your email list for a wakeup call.

We might have a lot more impact than trying to boycott companies which sell to the elite liberals of NYC and advertise in the NY Slimes.



27 posted on 07/07/2006 7:33:30 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

excellent html-ing Grampa Dave ;)


28 posted on 07/07/2006 7:53:00 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

bump


29 posted on 07/07/2006 8:06:29 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

"excellent html-ing Grampa Dave ;)"

Thanks to that wonderful Darling Ace Htmler, MiaT, Grampa Dave was able to post this how to re the NY Slimes and our mutual funds.

If you see her, thank her for me!:)


30 posted on 07/07/2006 8:11:06 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

;)


31 posted on 07/10/2006 9:31:46 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

BTTT.


32 posted on 07/12/2006 6:21:15 AM PDT by JusPasenThru (Democrats have bad karma.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JusPasenThru

thanx :)


33 posted on 07/12/2006 6:25:03 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; All
'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)

PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY
by Mia T, July 18, 2006


READ MORE


34 posted on 07/19/2006 6:41:05 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson