With every passing day, the Times loses a little more credibility.
1 posted on
04/15/2003 12:14:34 PM PDT by
Timesink
To: All
Attention!
|
|
Our troops give so much of themselves, and we all benefit from their efforts. The next time you look at your bank balance, why not find some way to take some money and put it towards supporting the members of our armed services in some way? Maybe find a family who has someone serving, and buy them dinner, or some groceries, or a gift for their children? Maybe find a way to contribute to a fund for the memory of any of those who have fallen? Our armed forces deserve our support in tangible ways.
|
2 posted on
04/15/2003 12:16:36 PM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Timesink; *CCRM; calypgin; bert; Peacerose; First_Salute; ForGod'sSake; Landru
FYI
3 posted on
04/15/2003 12:16:59 PM PDT by
Mr. Mulliner
("I could be a really good Christian if other people didn't mess me up all the time.")
To: Timesink
I am sure that the NYT is run by good, kind, compassionate left-wingers. People on the Left would never rule through fear and humiliation ... would they???
To: Timesink
Howell Raines, so self important now. two days after he's dead people will say, Howell who?
Would'nt know him if I pis*ed on him onn purpose.
5 posted on
04/15/2003 12:19:20 PM PDT by
chiefqc
To: Timesink
It doesn't even mention what was probably the most notable hatchet job: when Abe Rosenthal complained about Maureen Dowd's horrible Op Ed pieces, and Raines fired Rosenthal, who had formerly held the chief editor job himself.
Sources have publicly said that Dowd and Raines had an affair when he first joined the Times, which may or may not explain his continuing support of this sorry excuse for a writer.
7 posted on
04/15/2003 12:25:39 PM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Timesink
Think of the brilliant coverage of the Atlanta golf club scandal.No women allowed to join! Priorities,priorities!
8 posted on
04/15/2003 12:25:49 PM PDT by
MEG33
To: Timesink
bump
To: Timesink
Looks like the Old Gray whore has the clap.
11 posted on
04/15/2003 12:31:32 PM PDT by
bert
(Don't Panic !)
To: Timesink
13 posted on
04/15/2003 12:42:10 PM PDT by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
To: Timesink
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Air Force did not target this enemy encampment on D-Day night at the same time they hit the bunker.
To: Timesink
With every passing day, the Times loses a little more credibility.What's less than zero?
17 posted on
04/15/2003 1:04:12 PM PDT by
mewzilla
To: Timesink
the old timers who lived through the worst of [former executive editor] Abe Rosenthal say they have never seen anyone be so arrogant, so petty, so mean. Vindictiveness is in." Are they discussing the New York Times or the offices of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-Nurenberg)?
18 posted on
04/15/2003 1:04:58 PM PDT by
Cincinatus
(Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
To: Timesink
This explains the rash of suicides by employees.
To: Timesink
Nobody expects the New York Times! Our chief weapon is mendacity ... mendacity and fear...fear and mendacity ... our two weapons are fear and mendacity ... and ruthless humiliation. Our three weapons are fear and mendacity and ruthless humiliation and an almost fanatical devotion to Marxism... Our four ... no ... amongst our weapons ... amongst our weaponry are such elements as fear, mendacity .. I'll come in again...
My apologies to the Python gang.
22 posted on
04/15/2003 1:54:21 PM PDT by
Ranxerox
To: Timesink; mewzilla; Ranxerox
To: Timesink
According to insiders, Raines is the kind of 1950s-style autocrat who manages through humiliation and fear. This rings true with my theory that a lot of liberals are despicable human beings. Because they are so corrupt and evil they seek out "causes" that allow them to feel "righteous". (Most people want to think of themselves as good.)
Raines seems to fit the profile -- the vile person who uses his influence to support whatever is the current politically correct cause.
To: nutmeg
read later bump
26 posted on
04/15/2003 4:17:06 PM PDT by
nutmeg
(Liberate Iraq - Support Our Troops!)
To: Timesink
For the life of me, I can't understand why the shareholders of The New York Times put up with this sad performance.
To: Molly Pitcher
A tardy ping
29 posted on
04/21/2003 2:20:21 AM PDT by
The Raven
(Socialism is a weapon of mass destruction)
To: Timesink
This article was posted before the Jayson Blair scandal broke.... Let us review some interesting quotes about Howell Raines:
Raines and his deputies are said to have engaged in a rolling purge, systematically pushing out editorial employees with ties to the past and making way for new stars.
And yet Raines bent over backwards to keep Jayson Blair aboard at the Times despite his many transgressions.
According to insiders, Raines is the kind of 1950s-style autocrat who manages through humiliation and fear.
So long as you are NOT an affirmative action favorite of Raines.
"the old timers who lived through the worst of [former executive editor] Abe Rosenthal say they have never seen anyone be so arrogant, so petty, so mean. Vindictiveness is in."
There must be a lot of glee among the NY Times staffers right now at the hot water Raines has gotten himself into.
A Times spokesperson offered no response to a detailed request for comment, and efforts to reach Boyd found him first in a meeting and then unavailable.
Gerald Boyd---Another big player in this sad affair.
In comments that same day, Joe Sexton, an editor on the Metro desk, praised Metro editor Jonathan Landman, a longtime champion of the Levy series. According to Sexton, he said of Landman, "He has created a wonderful environment to work in. He gives the editors and reporters around him his trust, a sense of individual authority, and complete freedom to go out and do their best." Others noted a contrast with Raines, who often ignores editors' and reporters' ideas.
Does the name Landman sound familiar? He was the editor who warned that Jayson Blair should be removed from writing duties IMMEDIATELY. Trust me, Raines was aware of that WRITTEN warning and ignored it.
Before it was published in April 2002, the editors sent Raines a memo summarizing it. But Raines did not read the memo, sources say, and two months later, he claimed he had lost it. Raines's interest in the series seemed to peak when it won the award.
Forget about the scandal. The INCOMPETENCE of Howell Raines should be enough to fire him.
Critics say Raines judged him more for his loyalty, or lack thereof, than on the merits of his performance.
Jayson Blair was LOYAL to Raines so his performance to Raines was unimportant. Loyalty is ALL-IMPORTANT to Raines.
I repeat....Howell Raines is the WORST editor in the history of Journalism. I know that is saying a lot but can anyone out there name a worse editor than Raines?
31 posted on
05/13/2003 12:57:59 PM PDT by
PJ-Comix
(A Person With No Sense Of Humor Is Someone Who Confuses The Irreverent With The Irrelevant)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson