Darn.
Get a loan from our enemies you dirtbags..
buh-bye, Pinch Loafberger!
Couldn’t happen to a nicer fishwrap newspaper....! HA!~HA!
ROTFLMAO ... schadenfreude. And the best part is these people still don’t have a clue “why” this is happening.
My bet is they will eventually dry up since they cannot admit what is really going on. The Internet is drying up our business crap is not working. They are like an alcoholic in complete denial. How pathetic.
I had to laugh, the post below yours is the Rush Limbaugh Live thread....I could not help see who has the greater success
To quote Governor Richardson, “Stop whining!”
It’s time to Pinch this one off, and let it go.
Wow the "old gray whore" is hoping to be bailed out by a classical music station...I've heard those are real cash cows.
Yeah baby!
Here`s one major reason why:
” The last HonestReporting long-term analysis of the New York Times was released in November of 2007. At the time, we found that there were several disturbing patterns in how the Times reported events in the Middle East. Our conclusion was that the treatment of Israeli and Palestinian actions was so different, that there could be no question that the reporting was favoring the Palestinians rather than remaining impartial. We highlighted specific cases where headlines dealing with Israeli or Palestinian actions were written in different styles. We also noted that the vast majority of images used by the Times appears reflectively sympathetic to the Palestinians while virtually ignoring the greater context surrounding the conflict.
We have now concluded a broader survey of the Times. Specifically, we looked at 205 articles between July of 2007 and June of 2008. Using this much larger time frame, we found that our original thesis has only been strengthened. Specifically, when reviewing headlines and photographs, it is clear that there is an inherent bias in New York Times reporting about the conflict that favors the Palestinians.
THE NEW YORK TIMES: JULY 2007-JUNE 2008- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
82 percent of headlines that introduced articles describing Israeli military operations were written in a direct style in which the words “Israel” or “Israeli Forces” (or a similar phrase) were the subject. In the majority of these cases, no details were given as to whether the casualties were combatants or civilians. An example of this type of headline ran in the Times on January 4, 2008: “Israeli Forces Kill 9 in Gaza.”
Only 20 percent of headlines that introduced articles describing Palestinian attacks named the group responsible. Most of these headlines were written in a passive, less direct style that removes responsibility of the attack from those who caused it. An example of this type of headline ran on May 13, 2008: “Rocket Fired from Gaza Kills Woman in Southern Israel.”
75 percent of the photographs that could be objectively determined as drawing sympathy for one side or the other in the conflict favored the Palestinians. Palestinian casualties of Israeli military operations and pictures of civilians dealing with shortages in Gaza dominated Times coverage during the time period studied.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=FCEB5FB0-50CD-45FE-A68D-4C68572E1B1B
.
.
The New York Times Company Declares Regular Quarterly Dividend Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:47pm EDT
NEW YORK--(Business Wire)-- The New York Times Company's Board of Directors today declared a regular quarterly dividend of $.23 per share on the Company's Class A and Class B common stock. The dividend is payable on September 15, 2008, to shareholders of record on September 2, 2008.
That this is happening in an election year, when they expect to make a lot of $$ from political ads, is devastating.
I’m sure they will get a donation from Al Qaeda since the Slimes is doing Al Qaeda’s bidding.
Looking for a govment bailout.
You got me all excited with the 82% drop alert. That is, unfortunately, not true.
Sorry, my mistake. I just kept reading from the 2nd paragraph down. Now, I am thrilled.
Forget McCain’s editorial. They ought to run another full-page Moveon.org Gen. Betray Us ad..
I posted an article from the NYT once. It featured pictures of young Afghan girls, some not even 12 yet, married to men in their 50s and 60s. Somebody went to the link and posted all the pictures, presumably so nobody would have to click on the NYT link. Somebody else chastised me for posting it at all. I responded that I never bought the paper. I can’t remember who it was, but I owe that person thanks for having explained to me that clicking on their link boosts their internet ad. revenues.