New York Times Streak of Page One Stories on Abu Ghraib ends at 32 Days! (UPDATED: 34 of 37 days)

The New York Times ^ | June 2, 2004

[Plutarch]

Actually, I am not sure about the last seven days, because the web site doesn't list the page number for recent stories. It doesn't appear that the NYT had a front page story on May 23rd, but that was probably just an oversight on their part. If there are any further inaccuracies I will print a vague correction several days from now at an obscure web site. The NYT's Abu Ghraib front page story streak was reported previously on this thread: Confirmed! The New York Times is ACTUALLY Plotting to Oust Bush!

[WOSG]

wow!!!!!!!!

[Keith]

I would URGE you to send a post on this bent to the ombudsman...not that it will do any good.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

So what anti-Bush hit piece is on the front page instead? It's the Slimes. It's gotta be Bush's fault somehow. It's always Bush's fault. /sarcasm

[mrustow]

I've sent dozens of letters to the editor during the past six months alone. They never published a one.

[alpha-8-25-02]

you can only throw sh1t against the wall so long.
simple mechanics,it being the sh1t won't stick any more.
reality of chesise nature,a substrate must be pourous[ie the ability to hold on to something applied.]
here at fr we are impervious to having sh1t stuck to us.
now the rest of dumbdom can'thold on to much more application.
sorry just science.
GODBLESS US ALL!

[John Lenin]

yawn !!!!!

[Criminal Number 18F]

Wow. Just makes you want to take Bill Keller and chain him to a bunk with Maureen Dowd's 2X panties on his head. Or maybe they're his own panties... hard to tell with metrosexuals.

...just kidding...

... I think.


Seriously, excellent job of research, hope the blogs pick it up.

We saw how well the LA Times's full-court press worked in that California election. Let's see how the mothership of liberal bias does in its attempt.

It's been a while since I played basketball, but ISTR that the coach would call the full-court press when our side was losing. Food for thought.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[weegee]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

[Plutarch]

If Abu Ghraib had occurred during a Gore Administration the coverage would have consisted of one oblique reference buried in another article on page A16 on a Saturday.

[Petronski]

No Abu Ghraib story on page one today? I guess they just don't care about the story. How callous of them!



;O)

[petercooper]

The prison "scandal" will be the stupid dems 2004 Wellstone rally.

[Plutarch]

No Abu Ghraib story on page one today?

It must have been a bitter pill for them, that they had exhausted every angle, every scrap of additional "news" on this story, and strive as they might, they could not confabulate a piece that they could put above the fold on the front page.

Well, there is always tomorrow!

[kidd]

An interesting observation. I believe Bill O'Reilly made a similar observation about a week ago, but I'm glad that you followed up on it.

This should be significant to those who still are under the impression that the NYT is the unbiased center of the media world.

To the rest of us, its a nice tidy statistic that can easily be presented to demonstrate that the media does have an agenda.

[dennisw]

THEY did the same when they flogged the Augusta Golf Tournament for weeks about women being admitted. No one cared except for the NYTimes and a few feminazis.

[Helms]

Orwellian !

[Helms]

" I believe Bill O'Reilly made a similar observation about a week ago, but I'm glad that you followed up on it."

No validation of FR required by O'Reilly on this matter.

Perhaps O'Reilly has been following the posts here. We have known this and now it is documented.

Yes he did but many on FR have been aware of the war declared by the Orwellian Ministry months ago. Lets add the Boston Globe to the list as well.

O'Reilly simply spread it out further to his audience whom he proclaims to be looking out for.

[eureka!]

I saw an article that said the only other story that got the same type of page 1 exposure was Watergate. The funny part: Abu Ghraib is already history (and 61% of Americans thought the coverage was overblown). Hehehehe....

[Southack]

Nice documentation, thanks.

Something to keep in mind is that every morning the NY Times has a meeting with their editors. To date, they have refused to publish transcriptions of those meetings even though they have demanded that corporations and government decision makers be more open to them and to the public.

Hypocrisy?! Absolutely.

Do they have something to hide in those meetings (such as demands that their underlings "get Bush")?! Absolutely.

Nonetheless, this provides us with low-hanging fruit to grab over and over again. Every letter that we write to and about them, every phone call that we make and every interview that conservatives give, we can demand that the NY Times' editors make their daily meetings public.

What is it that the NY Times Editors are deciding in smoke-filled back-rooms??

The public has a right to know.

[Edit35]

Big Deal.

My streak of not even reading the NY Times stands at 12 years, three months, 17 days, four hours, and 10 minutes.