"All the news that's fit to print, but if we don't like it, we just might squint"
Posted on 11/22/2009 7:08:14 PM PST by gusopol3
This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
There is a reason only terrorists read the NYT....
did they ever talk about palin’s emails when they were hacked?
Its time, the NYT is going down. The NYT we receive here in FL is about the size of the NY Daily News opened. We can’t even get a weeks worth of use in the parrot cage.
Their reasoning is , Palin’s such a publicity hound, everything she does is intended for the public eye.
Besides, he's probably as bothered by the NYT's propaganda as you are. Parrots are, after highly intelligent and sensitive beings.
Oh yeah..you mean, like..details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, right?
I didn't think the NYT could shock me with its bias anymore, but I have to say the boldness of this drivel does surprise me.
"All the news that's fit to print, but if we don't like it, we just might squint"
as opposed to algore and the global warming crowd???
NYTimes: We Won’t Publish “Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye.”
Or report on a Democrat VP candidate’s sexcapades (Breck Boy!)
Btw, the NYT endorsed Mondale over Reagan in 1984, which kinda tells you all you need to know, ya know?
P!ss on the NYT!
Seems like a different standard than the one they apply to the GOP.
“All the News that Fits our Views.”
Obama’s thinking of subsidizing the poor witto newspapers, so they don’t have to go out of business.
C’mon, they’re just trying to be fair. Why should they be any harder on Obama than they were on Stalin 70 years ago?
What grotesque hypocrites they've proven themselves to be.
Even their liberal readers have to recognize the hypocrisy in this statement.
LOL This from those who printed classified information? What hypocracy!
Unbelievable the lies they think they can get away with.
Wonder what Clark (the Liar) Hoyt will have to say?
One wonders how they might take it if another outfit published their home addresses...
Would that include, say . . . the Pentagon Papers?
Good grief what biased jackasses
It’s not just a straight face, it’s an up-raised brow and a sniff. It’s you that doesn’t know the rules. Bad form, sir.
The Slimes needs to die.
Andrew Revkin
Hey, Jackass, people aren't reading what you write anyway! And now we know you only 'report' what you agree with, FRAUD.
bttt
There is a reason only terrorists read the NYT....
Free Subscriptions?
“Would that include, say . . . the Pentagon Papers?”
....I was wondering when somebody would pick up on that.
Watch it, he’s a member of what Jones’ emails call the “prestige press.”
lol.
The related comments below are posted in this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2392174/posts?page=8#8
The Washington Post wasn’t so punctilious about stolen information back when the Pentagon Papers were released.
Picture: http://www.topsecretplay.org/images/newspapersimage002.jpg
3 posted on Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:22:42 PM by Plutarch
To: Reaganesque
Fascinating logic from the paper that published the Pentagon Papers.
It was actually the New York Times, the WP only wishes it had.
7 posted on Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:33:47 PM by Plutarch
The Times and the Post both published their own stories and had no problem whatsoever in publishing illegally obtained materials. The Times got it first though, you are correct.
8 posted on Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:55:58 PM by Reaganesque
And there’s always “Deep Throat.” That was the WaPo. Leaked info is good when it tattles on Right wing wrong doing. Leak on a Lib, however, and you are a dirty “rat.”
9 posted on Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:00:31 PM by Reaganesque
“prestige press” = whores
Mann concludes by buttering up Revkin:
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
Of course not! Revkin replies, “Thanks heaps.”
The Mexican Carlos Slim Helu who owns them,....what will he do?
Hoping someone lobs one into their lobby.
So it is the choice of this blogger and not the policy of the NYSlimes not to publish the emails.
I at least will withhold my judgment on the NYSlimes on this issue until they publish an article about the liberated info. (No doubt I will then be enraged by their view point).
As for this blogger if he ignores the emails he can not call himself a believer in the scientific method. The evidence in the emails is very damning. These people were engaged in a coordinated effort to defraud the scientific community.
But he does seem to be their premier climate reporter and is personally mentioned in the e-mails, so he seems close to the heart of the matter.
Excuse me, isn’t this the paper that sparked the Pentagon Papers case?
That too...also, did they publish stories on Palin’s e-mails?
So is a part of the conspiracy or just a hanger on?
Most likely a useful idiot these so called scientists go to when they want to disseminate some disinformation.
Traitors
Times still pretending that they are relevant.
No you just published intelligence reports that endangered our troops and the country.
The NYTimes had a purpose in life. They don’t anymore. Buhbye.
Holy shit on a shingle. I’ve never seen such pathetic lying scumbags.
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.
