Skip to comments.The Far-Left New York Times Hits Rock Bottom
Posted on 06/13/2011 10:07:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
That loud crash you just heard off in the distance was the New York Times finally hitting the bottom of the barrel with an embarrassing but expected thump.
Having long ago turned its back on objective journalism to become the mouthpiece for liberal ideology, the Democrat party, and corrupt unions, it was still somewhat of a surprise to see the compromised editors of the paper do something which might cause Anthony Weiner to recoil from its unseemly request.
On Friday, June 10th, the State of Alaska released more than 24,000 of former Governor Sarah Palins emails. A Democrat recently told me that some liberals get more satisfaction out of a Palin mistake, or in smearing her and her family with more political mud than in the actual killing of Bin Laden. Apparently.
The New York Times -- under the headline Help Us Review The Sarah Palin E-Mail Records -- has just asked its readers to help its reporters to identify interesting and newsworthy emails, people, and events that we may want to highlight. Interesting and newsworthy being nothing more than liberal code for anything which will inflict further pain and suffering upon Sarah Palin and her family.
At first, I honestly thought it was a joke. Maybe David Letterman and Jon Stewarts writers got sick of being mindless servants to the left and decided to have some fun at the expense of the Grey Lady. But no. Those writers still do the bidding of the Messiah in the White House and The New York Times is beyond serious in arming its readers with pitch forks and torches as it eagerly sends its virtual mob out in search of the conservative monster. (It should be noted -- again predictably -- that the equally left-wing Washington Post initiated its own Sarah Palin email witch hunt)
Maybe next, The New York Times will ask its readers to become informants against their neighbors or even family members. "Tell us," the next New York Times headline might read, "who is not using "green" light bulbs, who is not driving a hybrid vehicle, who is sending their children to charter schools, who just ate at McDonald's, and who especially on your block or in your neighborhood, still believes in traditional values."
That headline and that request just seems like the next logical step in the New York Times spiraling flight from dignity and into literary dementia.
I dont seem to remember The New York Times asking its readers to review the 2000 plus pages of Obamas Healthcare bill, or to review the emails sent from the thuggish Service Employees International Union, or to help it get access to the names on the White House visitor logs team Obama is trying to hide, or to try and find anyone who might be able to prove if Obama actually had a higher G.P.A. in college than Joe Biden.
No. Facts and relevant information no longer interest The New York Times. Not when they can create an army of snitches to try and further harm the former governor of Alaska.
Surely, there must be one person at that paper shocked and humiliated by this request. Just one.
A request that is as pathetic as it is chilling.
Don't bet on it
You forgot their advertisers - TNYT’s bread and butter.
And damn few of their remaing readers will think there's anything wrong with it either.
Does anybody think that a person could get a job scrubbing toilets at the NYT if his/her politics were anywhere to the right of Karl Marx?
New York Times = New York Slimes
Yes, but the NYTimes DID ask its readers to pour through the Climategate emails for information.
They did, didn’t they?
Can some one help me out here—I was under the impression that the type of publishing (propaganda) engaged in by the NYT, LA Times, and others constituted campaign contributions. Doesn’t this need to be classified as financial contribution to the Democratic Party?
Or the East Anglia emails.
With its reputation and credibility shot, the NYT probably figures it has nothing to lose by jumping the shark.
Are they going to pay these new workers minimum wage? Or are they just going to Huffington Post them?
I wouldn’t wipe my azz with the New York Times.
It would be an insult to my azz.
You know, it was only 35 years ago that the New York Times was still considered a credible and trustworthy newspaper. In fact, it was even known to many people back then as “the newspaper of record”. My, how the mighty have fallen! Nowadays, the National Enquirer has more credibility.
The New York Times All the News that fits our views
The L.A. Times did the same thing. They don’t have enough time or resources to do it themselves so they ask their readers to do it.
Not only Pathetic but also in a way dangerous.
Could not their Liberal Bias Agenda be even more obvious.
Thanks so very much for all the money you peed away coming to Alaska to purchase the Palin emails. We can always use a few extra dollars from the lower-48. We hope you got to see a few sites while you were here and didnt just pick up the boxes and leave. If your plans arent too fixed might we interest you in the used paper hand towels from our government building bathrooms for the next two months. Youll have to pick them up in person and who knows what DNA youll find.
Government of Alaska
The history of newspapers in America show that they were always used for political views. Nothing has changed.
I haven't heard anything recent regarding NYT’s financial health. Anybody have anything new?
Jill Abramson, Feminist Journalist
The NY Times New Editor: I Take This Paper as Gospel
Here's an “example” of her “gospel”:
Van Jones unfit for print
The green czar affair should put the final lie to The Times objectivity
This is not an excuse, the managing editor of The New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period.
“Accomplished feminist” now executive editor of the NY Times
That was perception only; a faulty one. NYT, owned by a Jewish family,(ironically) refused to print stories about the holocaust and the horrific abuses being perpetrated against the Jews and others during the Nazi reign of terror in WWII. From all accounts, the Times was fully aware of what was happening.
A newspaper that did that, no doubt printed stories with an agenda all along. The Times credibility was an illusion only.
The only difference between WWII, 35 years ago and now is that the maggots have been found out so they no longer make any attempt to 'hide' their nefarious intentions.
I'll be equally honest and confess the same thing. This sort of stuff is going to put the satire writers out of business.
That’s a really good point. They also supported Stalin’s murder of 7 million in Ukraine, hiding other Communist atrocities before, during, and after WWII.
And I would imagine that they were Communist sympathizer FDR’s biggest fans?
Thank you. You are no doubt correct in the assumption about FDR. It would be interesting to dig through their archive (used to be available on line for free) and see some of the ‘glowing’ articles toward FDR.
I suspect that when General Patton’s slapping incident came up (there were actually 3 separate incidents) they were probably one of the publications calling for his head on a platter.
I’m sure you’re right!
And as far as this latest Communist-style witch hunt, all I can say is that they make me sick!!! And it’s extremely frightening, as the Townhall author so well points out. It is exactly what the Communists did in the other countries they took over. Neighbors ratting neighbors....
You know, all these years these scum reporters have had an agenda but they presented themselves as all american guardians of ‘truth’. Americans have always been trusting because our country was founded with moral clarity; that trust was abused over and over again. Some people still don’t get it but hopefully, with this Sarah Palin situation, people are waking up more and more. We can only hope.
These people should be strung up for treason; right along with Congress.
While I realize this is a serious article, this line is seriously funny.
Now, I've really got to wonder . . .
I agree with your post 100%.
You are correct — it was only in recent decades that the veil was finally lifted. Now (nearly) everybody understands that the NY Times is a juvenile playpen for homosexual Daily Collegian handwringers and affirmative-action charity cases; a pathetic laughingstock of a newspaper.
In any event, that thing is dying and bleeding money. And I’m laughing.
Yep..and I’m not even going to say ‘Rest in Peace’ when it finally kicks the can. The sooner the better.
Not even close.
The times has the unmitigated gall of stupidity.
Which is why it is a money-losing operation.
If it were not for their ownership of the Kaplan (of SAT prep fame) company, they would be bankrupt already.
IMHO, they’ve not been worth reading for a few years, because you know what the “news” is going to be with them.
Ah, the Daily Collision. You take me back....
There were two slapping incidents about a week apart in August, 1943, in Sicily. They were reported from the field by reporters from three magazines (including The Saturday Evening Post and Collier's) and NBC News. The guy who tried to take Patton out with a column at that time was scumbag Drew Pearson. Ike supported Patton, but Patton did lose a valued friend and mentor, Gen. John Pershing, then retired, who never spoke to him again.
There was one other attempt by the press to get Patton relieved, this one successful, in autumn 1945. The ringleaders were Carl Levin of the New York Herald Tribune (later a PR exec for, among others, the 1967 Greek colonels' junta; d. 2002 [not related to the senator, who was ~11 y.o. in 1945]) and a reporter for The New York Times named Daniell, seconded by two other reporters who as a quartet went after Patton at one particular presser.
Patton was out on a limb by then, his antisemitic sentiments having grown during the war. He apparently got it from the upper-class people his family knew in society, and somehow it intensified during the war and by the end of the war he was regularly saying things that would get him exiled to Patagonia today.
But that wasn't what cost him his command, it was a "sharpening of issues" instigated by the press quartet who went after him about employment of former Nazis, and even SS men, in sensitive positions in Bavarian civil government.
Having overrun and occupied Germany, the various U.S. armies found themselves in a wrecked country with wrecked infrastructure. Unwilling to put their soldiery to civil employment and rebuilding tasks, the American commanders generally called out Germans who knew their engineering and admin tasks from wartime service and put them to work. This practice flew in the face of Eisenhower's articulated policy of denazification; there were so many former Nazis that it was impossible to avoid using many of them in responsible positions if one didn't want to use U.S. military personnel or send to the States for people to be dragooned into the jobs and sent over.
Most U.S. generals caught in that position simply kept a low profile while using the gamey Germans, but the quartet goaded Patton into commenting publicly at a couple of pressers, and then stuffed him into the resulting admin meatgrinder by forcing Eisenhower to address, as a matter of insubordination, the deviation of Patton in particular from the public policy.
The apparent motive of the U.S. reporters who attacked Patton was to help the Soviets a) remove a military threat and b) move their own "key man" assets into civil government.
Patton and others suspected an Ohio State professor named Dorn who was attached to Eisenhower's G-5 staff (civil government relations) of being a secret Communist Party member; Dorn was a mover of the operation to get Patton fired.
You are correct in your review of the history of newspapers. My comment should have been viewed through the lens of sarcasm.
Another concern I have is that “mainstream” news organizations falsely claim they are not propagandizing for the left. I only wish there was some way to label them, like the contents list on a food item, to ensure the bias is clear to the consumer. A great many people eat this information and accept its veracity—partly because there is no easily accessible source of accurate information.
Thanks for the reply.
Evil in the press has existed all along. Wolves in sheeps clothing comes to mind.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard anything regarding antisemitism from Gen Patton and I have read into his history pretty thoroughly and have a couple of books authored by him.
Regarding the number of slapping incidents, I could be mistaken but was sure I read that there were three; it either came from a written article or from the history channel’s segment on Hollywood movies v/s the true story. That of course was not the name of the series but you get what it was about.
The one on Patton had several people who knew him personally and/or served with him; plus his nephew (who kept calling him Georgie...even though that was his nickname, I felt his nephew emphasized that nick to disparage Patton. It was a display of disrespect imo). All interviewed for that program agreed that the movie portrayal was exceptionally close to the way the real George Patton was. I took heart in that but of course it was before Hollywood completed it’s hard leftist turn.
Anyway, will have to research a bit. Do you have a link regarding any writings on the antisemitic remarks?
That sort of white-shoe antisemitism is gone into in greater detail in magazine articles I've seen about the refugee incident involving a late-30's attempt by hundreds of German Jews to immigrate to America in a German liner. State Department WASPs made sure the liner was turned away after a long, fruitless cruise up and down the East Coast. Eventually the liner returned to Germany and its passengers wound up in the death camps.
At war's end, Patton was noticeably unsympathetic to the plight of displaced persons and concentration-camp survivors, often speaking of them in terms more pungent than he did of SS hardfaces pent up in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, a camp under his authority. Patton refused to understand that the tendency toward bad hygiene and toilet practices among the Jewish DP's and camp survivors was an artifact of their deathly privation for years under the heel of the SS. He judged them severely for dirtiness and bad hygiene, which is a hallmark of ethnic aversion.
The name "Georgie" was universally used in his family (except by his own children, of course); I noticed that, too. It wasn't patronizing or impious -- nobody patronized George S. Patton Jr.