Posted on 01/30/2009 6:52:59 AM PST by AIM Freeper
In her new book, Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America — ironically, currently #2 on The New York Times Best Sellers List — Ann Coulter excoriates America’s newspaper of wretched. Here are a few of her disclosures:
* “On October 15, 2008, the Obama campaign’s internal pre-debate talking points were inadvertently released to the media.” On the same day, The New York Times ran a story in its politics blog, “The Caucus,” that bore striking similarities to the Obama memo. For instance, both predicted that McCain would bring up Obama’s ties to ex-terrorist William Ayers. The Times essentially took the Obama memo, changed a few words, and slapped a byline on it.
* In the 2004 campaign, The Times repeatedly referred to charges of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans as “unsubstantiated.” But Coulter notes: “By contrast, not once did The Times describe the laughably unsubstantiated charge that Bush went AWOL from his National Guard service as ‘unsubstantiated’ out of 18 mentions of that allegation.”
* When a conservative says something dumb, for The New York Times, it’s proof positive that he’s a moron. But candidate Joe Biden’s repeated gaffes showed he “doesn’t take himself too seriously,” according to the paper.
* In reporting on public reaction to Republican intervention to save Terri Schiavio, a Times story claimed, “Polls indicating broad public opposition to government involvement in the Schiavo case may be giving some politicians second thoughts.” As evidence, it cited an ABC News poll that consistently misstated the facts of the case, and ignored a Zogby poll (that described the case correctly) showing respondents opposed withholding food and water from the disabled woman by 79% to 9%.
* During the 1984 campaign, The Times repeatedly ran stories claiming Mondale was closing the gap on Reagan. In 1996, there were no Times stories on Bob Dole catching up with Bill Clinton, even though Dole lost by a smaller margin than Mondale.
* Coulter comments on The Times’ use of ideological labels: “These are actual New York Times headlines describing two Supreme Court nominees: ‘An Advocate for the Right’ — News story on Bush nominee John Roberts, July 28, 2005. ‘Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle’ — News story on Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, June 27, 1993.”
This only skims the surface. Coulter’s latest book contains reams of evidence on the way The New York Times acts as an adjunct for the left wing of the Democratic P arty.
See my tagline...
Who reads the New York Times. It is people who already believe what they are reading, and just looking for evidence that they are no alone. You can say that about all media. People listen to or read a news outlet to hear what they want to hear. Not to get informed!
Been this way for years ... the New York Slimes is nothing but the 21st century version of ... PRAVDA!!
on it’s masthead NYTimes underneath it should say
“All the news that the Democrat Party Deems Fit to Print”
Your tagline will never happen. We’ll always have to fight them, they’ll always be the front line of useful idiots for the world communist system.
“Republican’s first strategy should be taking over the MSM. Without it we are doomed.”
I couldn’t agree more. But let me add step 1A, take back the public schools. If we teach our kids to think critically, then the need to hold the MSM will be diminished.
**Who reads the New York Times.**
I won’t even use it to line my Bird cages.
Quite simply, it's unreadable.... It does have a good crossword though.
I am expecting Rush to start a conservative network. If he wants to help America, then he knows it’s a game of the mind. The mind, sadly, can be easily (we are experiencing it now) molded by a media bent on anything they wish.
“People listen to or read a news outlet to hear what they want to hear. Not to get informed!”
I disagree. It’s true in some cases, but in many cases, people turn on the evening news to get “informed”. It’s what my parents did, and I did it for a while. I had no idea how much spin was involved.
My eyes have been opened, but there are lots of otherwise intelligent people who are swayed by the MSM.
Your tagline hits the nail on the head. MSM gave us Obama/Hillary/McCain. A win-win for MSM.
The MSM can pretty much give us what the wish. You can’t have 90%+ dims, that have no problem showing their bias and passing it off as news or facts, and expect any other result. Rush needs to help us fix this.
I happen to know a Conservative who works there (believe it or not) and they are DESPERATELY trying to find another job.
I understand the NYTimes will soon begin printing its US paper in both Spanish and English.
This is a little long, but worth watching. From 1985.Yuri explains the role of the media in ideological subversion. It’s been happening for a long time, and is no accident. The media aren’t bent on anything they wish, they are bent on carrying out their objective.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
Absolutely right.
See my tagline....
See my tagline...
I agree with you. However to read daily on FR one would think the MSM is on a death watch.
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.