|
The New York Times is the newspaper that serves as a de facto authority in the news
business. Regardless of its openly liberal, anti-war (when the President isn't a Democrat),
anti-Republican editorial slant, news items that appear in the Times are repeated by other newspapers
and broadcasters without the slightest hesitation or doubt. This is largely because of
the NYT's many decades of experience and -- until recently -- its reputation for accuracy and
objectivity. Unfortunately, the NY Times has become a talking points memo for radical
leftists in the Democratic Party. That's perfectly okay, and the First Amendment
guarantees the protection of such a newspaper, except when the newspaper publishes
information that is beneficial to our enemies while we are at war. At that point, if the
New York Times were to be forcibly shut down, the country would be better off. Fortunately
for the Times, the U.S. has neglected to make an official declaration of war since the 1940's. News You Won't Find At The New York Times. In the Times cocoon, a grass roots mobilization of feisty, democracy-loving Wisconsinites is rising in rebellion against the hated Walker business and big donor lobby. In the actual Wisconsin, there are two grass roots movements opposing each other. The anti-union populists may end up with more energy, more unity and more votes than the pro-union organizers. The labor mobilization against the Walker reforms has been lovingly and carefully covered by the Times and its brethren since Day One: nothing like that level of analysis has been deployed on Walker's grass roots support. Spin of the Times: Bias cloaked as front-page news. It's no surprise to anyone who pays attention that mainstream media tilt their coverage in favor of Democrats and leftish ideas. But it's not confined to endless puff pieces about the president, or the ignoring of unpleasant facts. Often, it's more subtle — as when the general thrust of a news story advances a particular narrative even when the facts within the story don't really support it. For that sort of thing, you have to go to the acknowledged experts, the reporters and editors of The New York Times. And as Obama fights for re-election, you can expect to see a lot more of it. NY Times Still Finds Obama a 'Rock Star,' Rally Has 'Techno-Dazzle'. New York Times correspondent Mark Landler hyped Obama the "aging rock star" trying to rekindle the 2008 magic at a rally Saturday [5/5/2012] in Columbus. It also featured "digital gizmos" that "lent the rally the techno-dazzle of an Apple product introduction." The euphoria may be hard to recreate — the media hype then was more effective because it didn't have three-and-a-half years of reality for rebuttal — but the Times is still deeply impressed. NY Times Goes Hunting for Racist 'Ultraconservatives' in Ohio Who Won't Support Obama. The New York Times sent reporter Sabrina Tavernise to the battleground state of Ohio, to the blue-collar town of Steubenville in pursuit of a pet theory: Barack Obama may struggle to win because some whites are racist. Tavernise starts by suggesting this could be a problem with Democrats, but "ultraconservatives" quickly surface. Walker Gains in Wisconsin: NYT Shields Readers From Distressing News. The New York Times has a long piece on the political situation in Wisconsin this morning, and in some ways it is reasonably balanced. [...] Even so, it is a journalistic disaster: it tells you everything you need to know except the one thing you really need to know, and it reveals the soft pale underbelly of establishment journalism in America today. Good News: Obama To Act More Like A Dictator. Obama has fully embraced the use of executive powers, and the NY Times works hard to say "yes, this is A-OK". One has to wonder how they would react if it was a Republican president. New York Times Columnist Bumps into Reality, Learns Nothing. A New York Times reporter produced a chart showing that the only successful budget deal in recent decades was the one in 1997 that included tax cuts — yet he then complained that we can't deal with red ink because Republicans won't agree to a tax increase. At The NYT: Clueless Blue Deer Meet Onrushing Truck. New York Times staffers, like suffering proles all over the world, belong to a labor union, and over the years the union has negotiated a very comfy defined benefit retirement plan. The staffers love the plan. But economic reality is intruding. Obama's Recovery About to Disappear. For the last several months, liberal journalists have been plugging the idea that the United States is enjoying an economic recovery after the slow down of the past few years and that President Obama deserved the credit for rescuing the nation from its troubles. [...] But one of the leading exponents of this thesis may be about to give up on their crusade to persuade us that everything is just fine and getting better every day. The New York Times published a front-page story intended to let its readers down gently as they confront a worsening economic picture in 2012. Playing the Race Card Again. "White Hispanic." That's how the New York Times, Reuters and other media outlets have opted to describe George Zimmerman, a man who would simply be Hispanic if he hadn't shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The term, rarely if ever used before this tragedy, is necessary in telling the Martin story in a more comfortable way. Paul Krugman Drills Dry Hole On Oil, Gas Fracking. The economist at the newspaper of record defends the president's energy policy of Solyndra, Chevy Volts and algae while dismissing the oil boom on private lands as a small-town hiccup with no impact on price. NYT Buries Obama's Tanking Poll Numbers. Did you know that this debate we've been having around abortion, contraception and other health care issues is hurting the GOP? You may not know it, unless you read the New York Times. ... They buried Obama's falling poll numbers, while insisting the debate must be hurting the GOP, because that's what they wanted and thought it would do. The New York Times' Hypocrisy in Favoring Islam While Criticizing Catholicism. This really is a year of anti-Catholic bigotry and few issues are revealing it like Pamela [Geller]'s fight with the nation's newspaper of record. New York Times nixes anti-Islam ad, runs anti-Catholic ad. Executives at The New York Times have rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement that mimicked a controversial anti-Catholic advertisement they published on March 9. According to a Mar. 13 letter sent by the Times to the ad's sponsor, anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, the $39,000 anti-Islam ad was rejected because "the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger." The Editor says... Apparently the editor of the New York Times believes that American troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region are currently in no danger, but if the NYT runs the wrong sort of advertisement, all that tranqulity goes out the window. Energy: Dueling Headlines for Dunces. Perhaps the greatest example of cluelessness in the pages of the New York Times was their bafflement a few years ago over the fact that the prison population was still rising even though the crime rate was falling, apparently unable to discern a possible link between the two. ... But yesterday [3/12/2012] the Times offered a wonderful contrast of stories that capture the full cluelessness of Obama-style liberalism today. Reaching Critical Mass. Is CRT oriented around some notion of white dominance or white supremacy? I think we can count on the NY Times to present critical race theory in as gauzy and flattering a focus as possible, so let's see how they described it over the years. NYT: Privacy is for liberals only. Like many environmental reporters, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times hides his real agenda to push his opinions in news stories. If the Society of Professional Journalists or any other hoity-toity group of newsmen and newswomen had any integrity, they would go after these pseudo-journalists and the newspapers that pay them. But instead readers have to figure this out. The Heartland Institute Flap. The NY Times weighed in the following day [Feb 16] with this misleading headline: ["]Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science["] It calls the event a "leak" rather than evident fraud, clearly indicating bias. It also refers to a "campaign against climate science." This too is wrong; there are honest scientific disputes, which the NYT ignores. In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't grant or guarantee the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It says the government can't infringe upon it. That's what the "Congress shall make no law" bit is all about. This confuses the people at the [New York] Times. 'Terse, Old' Constitution Outdated for Failing to Guarantee 'Entitlements', Says NYTimes. Sorry, Founders: The "terse and old" U.S. Constitution has been ruled out of date by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak for failing to provide such "rights" as free health care. ... Liptak failed to differentiate between rights retained by the people from the power of the government, like freedom of speech and religion, and entitlements, which are transfers of money and services established by government either via majority rule (i.e. voting) or judicial fiat. Examples include foot [sic] stamps, welfare payments, and "free" health care. The Incredible Shrinking New York Times. Despite the launch of an online paywall that has, by any measure, been a big success, the company's revenue for its core news business shrank again in 2011. And because news expenses rose, profits shrank even more. The culprit, as ever, is the company's print-ad business, which has shrunk steadily for the past five years. New York Times Faces Leadership Vacuum. The departure of New York Times Co. (NYT) Chief Executive Officer Janet Robinson last month leaves the company with a leadership vacuum amid falling revenue, profit squeezed by pension costs and pressure from family members to restore a dividend once worth more than $20 million a year. Homeless Families in Illinois Walking a Hard Road. When her public aid arrives without snags — a rarity, she said — she receives $674 in Social Security, $623 in cash assistance and $723 in food stamps each month, plus support from the federal Women, Infants and Children program. The public support covers food and clothes, but it is not enough for a security deposit on an apartment. Dealing with the red tape of public aid eats up her days. The Editor says... The New York Times wants us to feel sorry for this freeloader who is only good at one thing: reproduction. The Self-Destruction of the Mainstream Media. For the past forty years the mainstream media has become increasingly liberal and more overt in promoting the policies of the Democratic Party. ... The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000. The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 21% (234,000 readers) during the same period. The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat; they now have few viable assets left to sell and will soon be facing bankruptcy. Under Fire, Holder Brazens On. In a jaw droppingly sycophantic NYT's piece, originally titled, "Under Partisan Fire, Holder Soldiers On", the Obama administration's #1 lapdog, Charlie Savage reported that a defiant Eric Holder has no intention of stepping down. Lashing out at his and Obama's critics, Holder whipped out the all too familiar race card. The Times Trashes Truth-Tellers. The old Gray Lady long ago lost her credibility and any claim to fair and honest reporting, especially when the subjects involved any of Pinch Sulzberger's various political and social agendas. The New York Times Paints Holder As A Victim Of Fast And Furious. Charlie Savage's newest piece at The New York Times is, as my friend Sean Arthur on Twitter says, a shameless PR drivel and allows Mr. Holder to make ludicrous statements without challenge and pulls the race card. The New York Times and Charlie Savage are really going to do this after all the articles they published during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales scandals? Give me a break. The hypocrisy at The New York Times is too much to take. New York Times CEO Steps Down. The New York Times Co.'s Chief Executive Janet Robinson resigned unexpectedly, creating a void atop the New York publisher at a time when it is trying to remake its business for a digital age. Ms. Robinson's departure, disclosed by the publisher on Thursday, comes as persistent weak advertising results this year had raised questions among analysts about the future of a company that still relies on print for the lion's share of its revenue. When Business Executives Are Rewarded For Failure: How many times have New York Times editorialists and columnists railed against companies that reward failed executives with golden parachutes in the form of bonuses and fat retirement packages? ... Of course, it would be wrong to generalize about the treatment of outgoing executives. What constitutes an outrage when it is done on Wall Street may be entirely appropriate when we are talking about a CEO in another industry. Like publishing. Like the New York Times. The Real EMP Threat. On the front page, Monday's [12/12/2011] New York Times provides a slanted and insidious "news" item on Newt Gingrich's warnings about the danger of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons. The author of the piece, William Broad, clearly sought to convey the impression that the former House Speaker is scaremongering about a nonexistent, or at least much exaggerated, threat. This piece is seriously ill-informed, misleading, and dangerous insofar as it serves to perpetuate what is already a serious vulnerability to EMP attacks. NY Times' Editorial On Unemployment Unintentionally Condemns Liberalism. [Scroll down] But then I must ask the Times: Does this then mean there is a flip-side by which Democrats intentionally keep bloated governments afloat (often by increasing taxes on the private sector) in order to pacify with government jobs those same minorities whose votes they consider essential to their maintaining power? Assuming even the Times was correct in its take on GOP motives, then it must be assumed that the motive of the Democrats is to keep minorities employed in large swaths of a wasteful and bloated government labor force just to keep their own political machines running, correct? Or are left-wing politicians just more noble creatures than the rest? NY Times Adds Detail to NBC's Bowing, Fawning TV Deal with Chelsea Clinton. Only in a liberal cocoon of a publication would come the headine, "Chelsea Clinton, Living Up to the Family Name." But there it was in The New York Times. That writer sounds like someone who never read The Starr Report, or anything else critical of the way the Clintons managed the White House or Little Rock. New York Times Spins Fast And Furious Document Dump In Favor Of DOJ. If Charlie Savage is going to write an original story he could at least use a headline that doesn't dupe the readers? But the headline isn't the only bad part of the article. The whole article is completely soft on the DOJ and the tone is off, almost as if Mr. Savage is unconcerned that this operation has taken the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and 200+ Mexican civilians. More about the Gun Runner / Fast & Furious scandal. You're no reporter, Andrew Rivkin. Andrew Rivkin of the New York Times runs its Dot Earth blog, which advocates the latest in expanding government control of industry and restricting our freedoms in the name of saving the planet. Obviously, I have no problem with newspaper opinion bloggers, as that is what I do here. My problem with Mister Rivkin is that he continues to cast himself as a reporter. That is a disgraceful and misleading position. Being an objective reporter is the most difficult job at a newspaper, and he gave that up years ago. Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT's ClimateGate Coverage. The most striking take-away from the emails is how obsessed the climatologists seemed to be with media coverage — almost as if they were public relations associates as opposed to scientists. The extent of cooperation between the climate researchers and some friendly news outlets is also fascinating. New York Times on Solyndra: This Scandal Makes Republicans Look Bad, Right? [On November 24, 2011, the New York Times] examined the Solyndra scandal and concluded Republicans are really off base for having the temerity to complain about throwing taxpayer dollars down a rathole in the name of enriching big Democratic donors. NYT redefines Astroturf. Comparing the Tea Party movement with the Occupy Wall Street protests is like comparing patriotism with communism. Arrests at a Tea Party rally? Heaven forfend. On Saturday alone, New York police had to arrest 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters. One movement came from the people. The other is a union/socialist worker front that even has a New York City firm working its public relations. Naturally, the opinion writers at the New York Times got it morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positely, absolutely, undeniably and reliably wrong. Bill Keller's First Column. Bill Keller stepped down recently as executive editor of the New York Times and made his debut today as an op-ed columnist. Well, you certainly can't fault him for failing to come up with a refreshing new look at the country's problems. According to Keller, Barack Obama's political woes are George Bush's fault. 'We Were Impressed'. If you get a call from a pollster conducting a survey for the New York Times, you may want to hang up on him. The Times has its own idea about the purpose of opinion polls — an idea that is insulting to the public and that, as far as we know, no other news organization shares. Normally, the purpose of a poll is to measure public approval of politicians and their policies. For the Times, the purpose of a poll is to see if the public measures up. Liberal mainstream media should try actual reporting for a change. I know it may sound crazy, but I have a suggestion for The New York Times. Instead of taking the word of the Obama White House, its energy department, or even the word of Republicans for that matter, why don't you simply gather a team of your investigative journalists, remind them of their professional responsibility to be ethical, honest, and non-biased, and then unleash them to do some actual reporting for a change instead of insultingly regurgitating White House spin? A Tax on Excess Wealth Creation. "Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires," reads the headline of the lead story in today's New York Times. Nice touch that "ask" part, as if paying taxes were voluntary. Don't Confuse Us With Facts. They cannot help themselves, The New York Times that is. With absolute regularity, they continue to report certain issues in the most biased and fact-avoiding way possible. Media Bias and Abortion Language. In a recent essay in the August 10 New York Times magazine titled, "Two-Minus-One Pregnancy," author Ruth Padawar discusses cases where a pregnant woman chooses to "reduce twins to a singleton." The expectant mother, after choosing not to endure the extra burden of raising twins, aborts one of the fetuses. Except, technically, she does not abort the fetus. Instead, a doctor inserts a long needle into her abdomen. Then, using a sonogram, he directs the needle into the chest of one of the fetuses and injects it with potassium chloride, quickly killing it. The body of the dead fetus remains in the womb and shrivels during the remainder of the pregnancy. It is removed during the live birth of its twin. Although the above description uses the word "kill," the New York Times author does not. Instead, she uses euphemisms such as "extinguish," "eliminate," and "reduce to a singleton." NYT burying latest Fast and Furious stories shows paper's 'biased approach'. House Oversight Committee officials aren't happy with The New York Times. Committee staff are accusing the paper of burying its story on how acting ATF director Ken Melson lost his job amid the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. Times readers would have to dig down to page A13 of Wednesday's Gray Lady to find out that Attorney General Eric Holder reassigned Melson to a different job inside the Justice Department. Bill Keller, Red Pope of American Media. The New York Times prints All the News You're Fit to Read — and if you're not fit to read about the reality of the "Arab Spring" (a pure New York Times fabrication, without a smidgen of fact) the NYT kindly protects you from ever knowing about the bloody realities of the Middle East today. Ahmadinejad recently calling for a second Holocaust wasn't even reported in the day's New York Times. This is called "editorial judgment," and it's exercised today by people like top editor Bill Keller, whose last week on that job begins today. Mr. Keller was in the news last week for smearing traditional religions with a very broad brush indeed — except for head-chopping Islam, for which he has nothing but the warmest praise. Who Are the Real Religious Bigots? [Scroll down] Did President Obama, for example, subscribe to the noxious political and religious beliefs of his pastor Jeremiah Wright? If not, why did he attend church there for 20 years and have his children baptized in that church? If so, shouldn't [Bill] Keller's leftist ilk have followed up on why Obama agrees with Wright? Is it merely accidental that Keller's candidate-faith anxiety is centered on conservative Christian candidates Bachmann and Perry? The Times Doubles Down on Its Issa Smear. On August 14, the New York Times ran a front-page smear of Congressman Darrell Issa, who has been a nuisance to the Obama administration in his capacity as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Times article, by Eric Lichtblau (who relied on the goofball far-left site ThinkProgress for research assistance) was titled A Businessman in Congress Helps His District and Himself. Lichtblau's theme was that Issa has wrongfully used the powers of his office to advance his own business interests. Darrell Issa Sticks it to the Times. Darrell Issa is a brilliant businessman who made a lot of money the old-fashioned way: he earned it, rather than marrying or inheriting it as so many Democratic politicians do. Which is another way of saying that he is just the kind of man we need in Washington. The Left, of course, doesn't see it that way. The New York Times hates Issa because, as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he has launched several investigations of wrongdoing that have embarrassed the Obama administration. Congressman Darrell Issa Hits Back at NYT's Front-page Attack. Issa's office has called for a "front-page retraction of the story due to the inaccuracies that fully undermine the premise of the article," describing the piece as an "error-ridden front page story." Issa's director of communications, Frederick Hill, explained that the three central examples the Times used to justify their claims are "wildly inaccurate," citing 13 inaccuracies in the article that reflect incorrect information or baseless assertions. With only one exception, the Times has yet to correct or retract any of the errors in the article. How Long Will It Take Keynes to Die? While the rest of hyperconnected, interweb-powered planet Earth has now seen Keynesian economic intervention tested in real time and discredited beyond any intelligent doubt, the [New York] Times, I quickly learned, is a walled garden where the ideas of John Maynard Keynes remain not only viable but so evidently true as to require no factual support. The Gray Lady's Sexual Agenda Revealed. Giddy after the recent legalization of gay marriage in New York, the editors at the New York Times are laying out the left's post-gay marriage agenda in the paper's pages for all to see. What they clearly want is a country that is sexually unrecognizable from the one we live in today, one where marital infidelity is accepted as a lifestyle choice and actually celebrated, and traditional marriage is legally marginalized and removed from the public square. Demonizing Christianity. The front-page headline in The New York Times last Sunday [7/24/2011] was stunning: "As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist." That would be Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old who has confessed to taking at least 76 innocent lives apparently because he doesn't like Muslims living in Europe. But why would the Times brand Breivik a Christian? He is not attached to any church, has no history of Christian activity, has openly criticized the Protestant philosophy and has admitted to committing acts counter to all Christian teaching. New York Times Downplays Muslim Fort Hood Terror Plotter. The New York Times downplayed the arrest of an AWOL Muslim soldier charged in connection with a plot to attack Fort Hood soldiers. The newspaper all but ignored the role Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo's religious faith may have played in the alleged plot. Abdo was arrested in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood. He was found with weapons, explosive, and jihadist materials. NYT Making the Motives Clear. It's hardly any news to AT readers and other thinking conservatives that the elitist left operates on the idea that only their coterie of "educated" intelligentsia can possibly know what is good for the "unwashed" masses -- and ought, by right have the power to make life's decisions and enforce them on everyone else. It's also hardly news that the New York Times is the nation's major mouthpiece for promotion of this thinking and simultaneously propounds in its pages agendas intended to undermine traditional American culture and morals. Inhibiting an Oil and Gas Boom. The fossil fuel shale extraction industry, where technological advancements and discoveries of huge reserves of oil and natural gas hold great promise for the nation's future energy needs, is under attack. In June the New York Times ran a dubiously sourced series of stories that sought to show the bullishness on natural gas is overblown. Meet the NYT's Executive Editor: "Leftist, Elitist, Communist, Socialist" Bill Keller. The latest edition of the New York Times's Sunday magazine gave conservatives a rare opportunity to repurpose Times Executive Editor Bill Keller as a piñata, though the paper's intent may have been to make its conservative critics look irrational. Readers responded bluntly to Keller's trashing of Sarah Palin in his column for the June 19 issue, in which he claimed "most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea" of a Palin presidency. Pinch Happened. The [New York] Times is preparing itself for a huge push to re-elect President Obama and will leave no story unpublished that could possibly help Obama or hurt his opponent, regardless of who it is. ... Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. ... became the paper's publisher in 1992 and has steadily transformed what was a newspaper into an ideological tool of the left. Here's an example of environmental alarmism in the NYT: Atop TV Sets, a Power Drain That Runs Nonstop. Those little boxes that usher cable signals and digital recording capacity into televisions have become the single largest electricity drain in many American homes, with some typical home entertainment configurations eating more power than a new refrigerator and even some central air-conditioning systems. ... One high-definition DVR and one high-definition cable box use an average of 446 kilowatt hours a year... The Mask Slips, Yet Again. No one who has lived through the last forty years can be surprised when a New York Times reporter reveals his contempt for those who don't share his cultural biases; especially, against those like me who live in the "middle places." All the biased news they see fit to print. Having grown up at the Times under the great Abe Rosenthal, I find it appalling that [Bill] Keller has so little regard for the standards that were the true mark of professionalism. The Times Slimes Clarence Thomas. Picking up the baton from the disgraced Anthony Wiener, the New York Times slanders Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, hoping to keep him from voting on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. How The New York Times Explains Male Sex Scandals. Of course, it is impossible to imagine Nancy Pelosi doing anything like Anthony Weiner did. But not because powerful men think they are invincible and powerful women do not, but because of male sexual nature. Powerful men are involved in sex scandals because they think they can get away with doing so, and because the drive to do what they did is so powerful they risk everything they cherish in life for it. Times' Bias Shows In Palin E-mail Affair. No wonder last week's frenzy over Sarah Palin's old emails went as fast as it came. Not only did it turn out to be the nonstory of the year. It gave objective journalism one of its biggest black eyes yet. Graying Deity Of Pre-Internet Journalism. It was a statement so telling, and so over the top, that within hours the Times removed it from its Thursday [6/2/2011] web story announcing Bill Keller's replacement as executive editor. "In my house growing up, the Times substituted for religion," said Abramson, the former Washington bureau chief. "If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth." That is how the left-leaning media establishment in America wants it. Airbrushing history at The New York Times. 'As someone who spent time in the Soviet Union while it still existed, the notion of airbrushing kind of gives me the creeps," New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in 2003. Keller was speaking in favor of the idea that the Pulitzer board should not rescind the prize it awarded the Times' Walter Duranty for reporting pro-Stalinist lies in the 1930s. This week the Times appeared to many to have airbrushed its own history. Creeping anti-Semitism in the New York Times. The Times, in more polite tones but substantively at one with such anti-Semitic conspiracy libels, wants readers to believe that American Jews constitute "one of the country's most powerful constituencies" and that it's their extraordinary power that accounts for all the applause and standing ovations Netanyahu received from a compliant and obedient Congress. New York Times' Share of Newspaper Sites' Traffic Hits 12-Month Low. The paywall introduced by The New York Times at the end of March is hurting traffic to its website, as expected, but perhaps within acceptable levels. The New York Times' share of United States page views for all newspaper websites dropped from 13% in March to 10.6% in April, its lowest share in 12 months, according to new data from ComScore. Why the New York Times Gets Everything Wrong: It's the Left-Wing Bias. There's no secret anymore as to why the paper has become worse than it ever was. The editors and writers are on the political left; and they are pompous enough to think that since everyone they know thinks the same way, what they are writing is objective. This is not to say that its bias is a relatively new thing. It's just that in the paper's heyday, you could find relatively straightforward top-notch reporting. But even then, on certain issues, there was very little difference between the editorial side and that of the reporters. Racially Inflammatory Al Sharpton Gets Yet Another Pass From the New York Times. The New York Times's weekly "Sunday Routine" feature is billed as "Prominent New Yorkers recount their weekend rituals." This Sunday it featured Al Sharpton being interviewed by David Halbfinger. Halbfinger's introduction gave no hint of why Sharpton is considered by non-Times readers as a controversial figure. Whitewashing a terrorist. Once again, The New York Times is carrying water for a terrorist — in this case, Lori Berenson, who openly acknowledges she was a "collaborator" with one of the two groups that plunged Peru into what may have been the worst terrorist maelstrom the world has ever seen. Why Is the New York Times Shilling for Far-Left Terrorists? As a wave of left-wing violence threatens to engulf the nation, why is the progressive New York Times running an ugly campaign of character assassination against a real-life American hero who saved lives and helped to safeguard the nation's sacred democratic process? Could it be because the newspaper is sympathetic to the goals of the thuggish community organizers and union goons intimidating state legislatures across America and wants to help advance the liberal-left narrative? How much further can the New York Times fall? There was a time not that long ago that when somebody mentioned "blue chips," it wasn't uncommon to hear the stock of The New York Times included among those of General Motors, General Electric, IBM, and so forth. Not anymore. NY Times letters to the editor can't say the paper is 'wrong'. The New York Times editorial board is never wrong. Or at least, they won't print anything that says they are. The worst of Times. The New York Times today [1/30/2011] offers what it calls the backstory on its publication of the stolen WikiLeaks documents. It includes the intriguing fact that the White House didn't try very hard to deter publication, but the report by executive editor Bill Keller mostly reads like house propaganda and a Pulitzer application. There is a laugh-out-loud moment. It comes when Keller writes that "it is our aim to be impartial in our presentation of the news." It's hard to imagine he believes that. Certainly nobody else does. The New York Times: Three-Fifths Of A Newspaper. It's sad enough the New York Times' editors believe it "a theatrical production of unusual pomposity" that the incoming Republican Congress require "that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution." It may be only me, but I'd be willing to bet those same Times editors would be running down the hallways, arms a-flailin' and citing a pure constructionist position on the First Amendment, if the new Congress required government oversight as to the content of their sorry excuse for a newspaper. The Times Loses It. The [New York] Times ran, as its second lead, above the fold on the front page, a story about the Tucson shootings headlined "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics." The article, by Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike, contains almost nothing newsworthy. Nor can it be called news analysis, beginning as it does with an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: "The shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords ... set off what is likely to be a wrenching debate over anger and violence in American politics." If self-fulfilling prophecies were wanted from reporters — and they are not — a better one would have been "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Mental Health Policies." New York Times Attempts to Label the Constitution As Irrelevant. As the unofficial, official Newspaper of the progressive movement, the NY Times has a core audience to placate, but who would think that they would go out of their way to alienate the rest of their readership. But that's exactly what they did in an editorial called "Pomp, and Little Circumstance", which rebukes the GOP for the attempt to repeal Obamacare, allowing John Boehner to swear his staff in early and most startling, for wasting the people's time by starting off the 112th Congress with a reading of the United States Constitution. The NY Times Explains the Constitution. It is fascinating to see the liberal response to House Republicans reading the Constitution in the House chamber. At the New York Times, reporter Kate Zernike offers an "annotated guide" to the Constitution that purports to explain the main battlegrounds between, as the Times frames the dispute, the Tea Party and progressives. ... The Times' analysis contains a number of howlers. ... We have "little in common with the framers"? Not even, apparently, a system of government. This is reminiscent of Ezra Klein's observation that the Constitution is old, so we may as well ignore it. A Blizzard of Lies in The New York Times. It's Orwellian when cold is declared warmth. It's deceitful and insulting when it occurs in the midst of a huge blizzard shutting down much of the northeast. I would not even trust the date on the front page of The New York Times because the newspaper long ago lost touch with reality, with sanity, and, one can only assume, readers fleeing to other sources for the news. Adios, Gray Lady. The New York Times used to be called the Gray Lady of American newspapers. The sobriquet implied a certain stateliness, a sense of responsibility, the possession of high virtue. But the Gray Lady is far from the grande dame she once was. Considering The Source Of Today's News Is Crucial. Once upon a time, The New York Times was a credible source of information and many educators demanded that their students use it for this purpose. ... Now that once-esteemed broadsheet is agenda- rather than journalistically-driven and one of the many sources to take with a large grain of salt. Under the stewardship of Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, the Old Gray Lady is now known for printing all the news that fits his liberal agenda even in the most innocuous sections. Just another act of deadly treason. Yesterday [5/24/2010], The New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document. This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Krugman: Rangel's Ethics Scandal Has No National Signficance. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says Congressman Charles Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics scandal has absolutely no national significance. As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" turned to new revelations concerning the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Sunday, the New York Times columnist was all by himself in making the case that Rangel hasn't really done anything wrong. The New York Times: Carrying Water For Castro, Again. An inexcusable piece hails a Cuban musician's Castro-approved visit to the States. No mention that Cuban dissidents receive beatings instead of visas. The NYT and 'American Justice'. The Obama-besotted editors at The New York Times applauded Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, (KSM) the confessed mastermind and of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the United States will be tried in a civilian court in New York City. New York Times' Disgrace Deepens. It is not just the rapid growth of online news alternatives that is destroying newspapers. The New York Times was once the most respected paper in America. Now it has become a paper in service to an agenda and a political party. Is it any wonder why people look elsewhere for news? New York Times to cut 100 newsroom jobs. The New York Times Co. plans to cut 100 newsroom jobs, about eight percent of the total, by the end of the year, the newspaper reported Monday [10/19/2009]. Van Jones — unfit for print. The [New York] Times continues to treat communism as a cute campus peccadillo like pot smoking or nude streaking. A Times think piece (Sept. 9) worried that [Van] Jones' fall was "swift and personal." Being a communist is personal but being the pregnant teen daughter of a vice presidential candidate is public business? NYT Editor Offers Tepid Excuses for Lack of Van Jones Coverage. A top editor at the New York Times this week owned up to the paper's lack of coverage of the controversy surrounding former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones. Rather than leaving it there, however, the editor noted the paper's minimal online coverage, insisted that the Washington bureau was short-staffed, and suggested that Jones and his contentious positions really were not important enough to cover at length. How much damage did the Times do? James Risen and Eric Lichtblau are the New York Times reporters who disclosed the highly classified NSA eavesdropping program in December 2005. In my view their behavior was blatantly illegal. In all likelikhood it did great damage to the national security of the United States. The Truth About The New York Times: The mighty New York Times has seen better days. Journalism's "Great Grey Lady," the grand dowager of the printed page, has experienced a steady decline in its reputation since admitting that one of the paper's most celebrated up-and-comers had something of a problem keeping the facts in and the fiction out of his news copy. The decline in the paper's reputation has been accompanied by a turn for the worse in its economic health. The New York Times Profiles Sonia Sotomayor's 'Rich Experience'. I made the mistake this morning of reading a front-page profile of Sonia Sotomayor in the New York Times. If that information alone isn't enough to prove I should have known better, this was the headline... Did the Times bury its story on interrogations' effectiveness? [Peter] Baker's story attracted a lot of attention soon after the paper posted it on its Web site. ... In fact, it appears there is just one place you won't find Baker's story: the print edition of the New York Times. This is Torture? [Scropll down] The administration's other mistake was to endorse the view, promulgated by the Left, that the techniques described in the memos deserve to be called "torture." Even a cursory examination indicates otherwise. Indeed, so far from being "brutal," as the New York Times has reported, most of the interrogation techniques are remarkable in their mildness. Unfair and unbalanced, Times spins toward oblivion. The nation's largest left-wing newspaper and the bible for network news producers and bookers may be going under. This past week, The New York Times [NYT] announced more staggering losses: nearly $75 million in the first quarter alone. The New York Post is reporting that the Times Company owes more than $1 billion and has just $34 million in the bank. A few months ago, the company borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim at a reported 14 percent interest rate. The New York Times May Want To Poll This Question. It seems every day there is another example of media deception in America. With the Fourth of July approaching, it is well worth remembering why the Founding Fathers gave the press special privileges. They wanted journalists to report honestly, to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power. Liberal Media on Life Support. On May 18, Maureen Dowd lifted 43 words verbatim from the blog Talking Points Memo to make the point (repeated in eight million previous columns) that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney live only to lie and to torture, giving no indication in earlier versions that the words and the thoughts were not hers. Hit with the news that two of their stars either stole words from others or omitted key facts to give false impressions, the Times said in effect they had done nothing terrible; that mere bloggers had no standing to criticize; and even if they did something terrible, it didn't matter, as they were The Times. Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times. The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world. It was shocking. And it was highly misleading. The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves. New York Times suspends dividend. The New York Times Co. said Thursday its board has decided to suspend the newspaper publisher's quarterly dividend in a move to preserve cash as advertising spending continues to decline amid the recession. The suspension of the payout comes after New York Times slashed its dividend to 6 cents from 23 cents in November. Murder Spree by People Who Refuse to Ask for Directions. In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it: "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers." The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group. So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons. Times Watch Quotes of Note 2008 — The NYT's Worst Quotes of the Year. The New York Times's embrace of Barack Obama's candidacy, and its fervent defense of him against John McCain's "racist" and unfair attacks, made 2008 a particularly bias-packed year for the paper. Good Thing We're Shutting That Gitmo Place Down. The New York Times reported yesterday that the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban have mended their fences in order to join forces against the surge in American troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban may be in hide-and-seek mode against our military but they make themselves available to the Times. Maureen Dowd Bares Fangs, Only Embarrasses Herself. When historians look back in wonder at how a long-established publication like the New York Times could have declined from its virtual king-of-the-world status in mid-2002 to its Bush-deranged, 85%-devalued shadow of its former self, they will surely make a few stops at Maureen Dowd's twice-weekly, lost-in-another-world columns. In the Tank for President Kerry. The [New York] Times has for decades been the liberal journalistic blacksmith shop where the templates of a presidential campaign have been forged. From its pages the template, like a well-crafted sword, is sent forth in duplicate form to the network news anchors and producers, to the other print outlets in the liberal media arsenal, to be used relentlessly in each and every story. S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk. Standard & Poor's on Thursday [10/23/2008] slashed its ratings on the New York Times Co into junk territory and cited concerns about the newspaper publisher's revenue outlook, after it posted a third-quarter loss. It's Official: NYT is Junk. Friday, the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for President as "the right choice" to follow the "battered, drifting and failed leadership" of George W. Bush. That wasn't a surprise. The real news came from another part of town: Yesterday [10/27/2008], Standard & Poors slashed the New York Times rating on its $1 billion debt to "junk" status. Coincidence, or cause and effect? The New York Times death spiral continues. Bye, bye corporate jet! At long last, the beleaguered company is sacrificing top management's plaything, the ultimate status symbol. A long overdue cost saving mechanism in a time when the company's workers endure downsizing and cost reductions, even crowding themselves into smaller office space to save money. NYT admits its writer intentionally lied. The "Corrections" column of the New York Times today [10/21/2008] contains an extraordinary admission that one of its writers deliberately misrepresented a study and misquoted a source. The Killer-Vet Lie: Memo to New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt: Your urgent attention is needed on the slanderous 7,000-word front-page article published last Sunday about homicides allegedly committed by US veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. We say "allegedly," because the article lumped those merely accused of a homicide with those who've already been convicted. But that was the least of the piece's problems. As our colleague Ralph Peters so adroitly demonstrated on these pages Tuesday, the article embraced the hoariest of overwrought clichés — the US combat vet as psychotic killer. Smut-hunting NY Times Limbo Dancing in Alaska. The New York Times is proving "how low it can go". The NY Times is dispatching a group of its top "investigative journalists", fanning them across the State of Alaska looking for dirt on [Sarah] Palin and Republicans in a desperate bid to take the wheels off of John McCain's little red wagon. Yellowcake journalism. [Saddam] Hussein got the yellowcake from somewhere. He almost certainly got it from Niger, Gabon, South Africa or Namibia, the four African countries with yellowcake mines. And [Joe] Wilson, who served with the State Department in Baghdad and Gabon, didn't know (or didn't report in his [New York] Times op-ed) that Hussein possessed 550 tons of yellowcake at the time of Mr. Wilson's African junket. The Return of the Wacko Vet Media Narrative. Who is responsible for such agenda-driven reporting at the Times and other media outlets? Mostly senior reporters and editors who are in their 50s and 60s, folks who came of age during the 1960s. Camouflaging News: Leave it to the New York Times to take a major story discrediting Barack Obama's Iraq policy and pitch it as a human interest feature on "mixed feelings." The New York Times vs. Common Decency. [Scroll down] Beyond the security calculations made on behalf of the interrogator by those noted terrorism experts Bill Keller and Dean Basquet, there is the extraordinary lack of common decency in deliberately and knowingly placing someone's life and the lives of his family in danger. This is especially true when you consider that the story would have gotten along just fine without us knowing the real name of the interrogator. Guest Column: The silence of 'The Times'. The power of The New York Times is undeniable — even in an era of declining mainstream media influence. What its editors choose to report still influences policymaking, as coverage of, or silence about, two recent Gaza-related events underscores. N.Y. Times Seen as Anti-Israel. Media watchdog HonestReporting.com has determined that The New York Times is biased against Israel. The organization discovered that most headlines concerning attacks are written in the active style when concerning Israel, but in the passive when concerning Arab terrorists, who usually are called "militants." The New York Times and the al-Dura Hoax: That the al-Dura lies incited murders of many innocent people is indisputable. The Jihadis who beheaded reporter Daniel Pearl inserted repeated footage of al-Dura in their gruesome video. Osama bin Laden cited al-Dura as a justification for his carnages in a post-9/11 recruitment video which showed the boy's "death" 12 times. The War Card: The New York Times now tells us that a new study entitled "The War Card" has determined authoritatively that during the months leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, top officials in the Bush administration — including the president himself — made "hundreds of claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he possessed forbidden weapons." The Times did not report that the study had been conducted by an organization that received more than $1.62 million from George Soros in the last few years alone. News That's Fit to Bury. Sure sounds like a lead story to us. But then, that would be good news about the war — and the Times has too much invested in its nonstop campaign to depict the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Any suggestion that the tide of war is turning and the terrorists actually are being defeated — something even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of Capitol Hill's harshest critics of President Bush, now admits — simply won't do. The Times Vs. Citizen McCain. Is the New York Times really suggesting that the child of an illegal alien who sneaked past the Border Patrol is qualified to be president, but an American war hero born to American parents overseas is not? What part of secrecy don't they understand? This is not the first time The New York Times has reported on "top secret" government documents, programs, or war plans. Getting it wrong, letting it slide. Why is it that the mightier the news organization, the likelier it will stand by ethical blunders that would shame a first-year reporter? Apparently, along with industrial mastery comes the right to deny, evade, whine and nitpick instead of owning up to what you did wrong and making sure you don't do it again. Warning: This article contains vulgar expletives. Rosenthal Blasts Critics Over Dowd Column. Some media observers are in a tizzy over a recent Maureen Dowd column published with a "Derry, N.H." dateline even though she filed it from Jerusalem. Also that some of the quotes used in the column were collected by her assistant, without a reporting credit. Greg Sargent originally called attention to it; the Columbia Journalism Review described it as "easy manipulation," and Spencer Ackerman said that using the Derry dateline was a lie. Major shareholder bailing out of the New York Times. The decline of the New York Times as a reputable newspaper has been matched by the decline of its business management. The running (or running down of the newspaper) by "Pinch" Sulzberger, descendant of the family which had purchased and remade the paper generations ago, has progressively destroyed the value of the Times (the apple does fall far from the tree -- especially after several generations). The paper has suffered disproportionably more than its peers on the stock market. The Rapid Decline of the New York Times. It's about as much fun being a newspaper publisher as an airline president these days, so Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. of the New York Times deserves our sympathy. Last quarter's earnings were dreadful. … Just last week, Lehman Brothers forecast that in a year, its common stock would decline in value by almost half. The Times to Cut 100 News Jobs. After years of resisting the newsroom cuts that have hit most of the industry, The New York Times will bow to growing financial strain and eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs this year, the executive editor said Thursday [2/14/2008]. The cuts will be achieved "by not filling jobs that go vacant, by offering buyouts, and if necessary by layoffs," the executive editor, Bill Keller, said. How The New York Times Fell Apart: Over the last few years, we've seen a number of newspapers find themselves in deep financial distress as they've failed to deal effectively with the challenge posed by Cable News and the Internet, and particularly (on the editorial side) the blogosphere and (on the business side) Craigslist, Google, and eBay. Unfit To Print? Every major daily paper in New York took note of President Bush's decision to bestow the first Medal of Honor of Operation Enduring Freedom on Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy — a Long Islander who gave his life for his country and his fellow SEALs. Every paper but one, that is. And it shouldn't be particularly hard to guess which one. Liberals Against Diversity. The New York Times op-ed page is trying to go from bad to diverse. The page has hired William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, as a weekly columnist, starting next Monday. Secrets, leaks and political correctness: Last week, I wrote about the New York Times' crusade to uncover and publish top-secret information and made the case that secrecy is in fact oftentimes a good thing, not something to be rooted out and destroyed. That column generated quite a few comments from people who were worried that I was advocating torture. I didn't actually, but I do advocate whatever is necessary, including a little secrecy, to keep us safe and to help us prevail in our war against Islamic terrorists. Top Ten Lowlights of The New York Times in 2006. From reporters throwing national security secrets onto the front page to publishers going on liberal rants at graduation ceremonies, we've whittled down the worst from another liberally slanted year in Timesland. Financial Woes for the New York Times. New York Times Company's reported financial results, outlook, and stock price keep getting hammered by poor business performance. Having announced it will pay $125 million in dividends, the company must increase its profits if it is to avoid further drawing down of shareholder equity, amounting to gradual liquidation of the company. How to Lie With Statistics: With apologies to Darrel Huff and his famous book of the same title, today's papers provide a wonderful demonstration of how the mainstream press — in this case, The New York Times, can use real statistics to justify politically spun conclusions. The New York Times and Iran: The New York Times has been criticized for helping terrorists in the past by disclosing investigatory methods and rendition policies and practices, supporting them in its editorial pages and allowing terror suspects to spin their stories in the news section, disclosing methods our nation has used to prevent funds from reaching terrorists, condemned the existence of prisons holding terrorists, criticizing the laws brought to bear to prevent terrorism, and whitewashing or apologizing for terror when it occurs. New York Times bond rating cut again. How much longer will Pinch Sulzberger's family allow him to drive the family fortune into the ground? Under his leadership, the company has not only turned to the hard left editorially, it has committed a series of business blunders imperiling their prosperity. The New York Times Reports and Distorts a Presidential Address. On July 24, around noon, President Bush delivered an important speech at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina. He discussed in considerable detail the links between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the central leadership of Al Qaeda, reflecting the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community. About four hours later, the New York Times posted a news story by Times reporter Brian Knowlton about the speech. NY Times calls Iraq a 'lost cause'. The New York Times on Sunday [7/8/2007] called for US troops to leave Iraq now, writing that President George W. Bush's plan to stabilize the country through military means is a lost cause. MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias. The New York Times forbids donations, but that didn't stop Randy Cohen, who writes a syndicated column for the Times called "The Ethicist," when he gave $585 to the far-left activist group MoveOn.org in 2004 to organize get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush. Cohen said he understands the Times' policy and won't do it again, but that he had "thought of MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than the Boy Scouts." The Worst of 'Times'. If you read The New York Times, you must think you only imagined the welcome announcement yesterday that JPMorgan Chase will build a grand new office tower next door to Ground Zero, just as Goldman Sachs is doing. Didn't the Times repeatedly proclaim downtown's days as a financial center were over? It sure did. And those who call the shots at the Times should be hauled before a journalism tribunal for printing all the destructive propaganda that could fit in its pages. 'Talking' terror. What if the months of planning and conversation that went into the 9/11 plot had been leaked in advance to The New York Times? Would the Times have reported it? Or dismissed it as "just talk"? Fair to ask — given how the Times reports on foiled domestic terror cases. Coincidence or pattern? We are to believe, I suppose, that it is mere coincidence that when leaks are harmful to the Administration there is no inter agency cooperation and no DoJ motivation to pursue the matters and when it is harmful to the Administration to pursue non-leaks and to sit on information helpful to the Administration, everyone in the bureaucracy goes out full bore. At what point does repeated coincidence become a pattern? My New York Times Problem: Despite all the ongoing critiques, the Times remains a major cultural gate-keeper. If a film, opera, ballet, concert, or book is reviewed in its pages — the work exists. Otherwise, the work and its creator are rendered almost invisible. The New York Times' own Rathergate. Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, has laid out a carefully worded exposé of the utter breakdown of editorial standards at the New York Times. The fact that paper prominently published a falsehood is only the beginning of the problem. When the falsehood was exposed, two senior editors of the paper issued a defense of the article without bothering to check the readily available court documents which critics had cited. Navy disputes war story told by former sailor. The March 19 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both. One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who … told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case. How a New York Times reporter's passion for Castro led him astray: Aha! Finally we've discovered the missing ingredient in American journalism, the vitamin deficiency that's been shrinking newspaper circulation and TV newscast audiences all these years. What Americans clamor for is not information but passion. The heroes of the coverage of Katrina were not the reporters who got the most accurate stories but the ones who shouted the loudest or cried the hardest. Speaking of poor circulation... New York Times to raise newsstand price to $1.50. The New York Times Co. will increase the Monday-Saturday newsstand cost of its flagship paper by 25 cents to $1.50, the publisher said today [7/23/2008]. … Newspaper publishers are battling sharp rises in newsprint costs and deep declines in advertising revenue. Phantom subscribers at the New York Times. Pity the poor New York Times Company! In addition to all its other woes, one of the company's newspaper distributors has been accused of defrauding the company with thousands of phantom subscriptions, recycling the papers supposed to have been delivered to the nonexistent subscribers, and collecting about $227k in fraudulent delivery fees. 'NY Times' Only Major Paper to Show Dead Saddam on Front Page. It's a rare day when the august New York Times tops the New York Post — and every other major paper in the U.S. — in grisly or sensationalistic front page coverage, but it did so on Sunday. An E&P survey of front pages from around the country reveals that the Times was the only major paper to include a picture of executed Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, on its front page, after his hanging. It was even above the fold. New York Times Turns to Supreme Court. The New York Times asked the Supreme Court on Friday [11/24/2006] to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two reporters in a leak investigation about a terrorism-funding probe. The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. Update: Court turns down New York Times in leak investigation. The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday [11/27/2006], refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe. Dirty Trick from the New York Times. In a last-minute dirty trick before the election, The New York Times took a story and twisted it in such a way as to damage the Bush Administration. This will go down as a case study of media bias intended to sway votes. Blood Will be On His Hands. A trend is developing whereby reporters for the New York Times let their hair down, drop any pretense of objectivity, and ream the Bush Administration. First it was Linda Greenhouse, the Times Supreme Court reporter. Now it's James Risen, the Times reporter who revealed the administration's highly classified NSA terrorist-surveillance program. NY Times: Saddam Close to Building Atomic Bomb. In an effort to hurt Republicans on November 7, the New York Times published a story accusing the Bush Administration of posting Iraqi documents that suggest Saddam Hussein's Iraq was close to building an atomic bomb. … Former intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sydney Francis says that the New York Times is attempting to have it both ways. "They say that Saddam wasn't developing nuclear weapons, but then they say Saddam possessed documents that could help someone create a nuclear bomb," says Francis. Times Risks American Blood in Terror War. The September 18 copy of New York magazine features the blaring headline, "Times Under Siege," and the reported claim by President Bush that the paper's editor would have "blood on his hands" if he published a story about electronic surveillance of terrorist telephone calls. If this is true, the Bush Administration has an obligation to prosecute the Times for revealing classified communications intelligence information. More FISA Fear-Mongering: The New York Times strikes again. In Times parlance, such monitoring of international enemy contacts, routinely carried out by every wartime president in history, somehow becomes "domestic spying" when George W. Bush employs it against an enemy that has managed to attack the United States — and, according to the intelligence community's latest assessment, is working feverishly to do it again. The horses are out. Let's close the gate. Banking Data: A Mea Culpa. Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there's a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments. My July 2 column strongly supported The Times's decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. Let's dare call it treason. They are not Benedict Arnolds — they are in a class all by themselves — political and journalistic hacks willing to do anything to win an election and oust an administration they loathe even if by so doing they endanger the safety of their fellow Americans. Time after time, for months on end, we have watched the spectacle of government officials in the intelligence agencies violate their oaths by leaking the most sensitive secrets to dedicated anti-American newspapers such as the treasonous New York Times. The New York Times Still is not Sure Bush is "Legitimate": Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it. Whack 'em Down: Facts are something the New York Times and Time magazine and all the rest of the corrupt elitist media find most inconvenient and simple to ignore or distort. What to do with the elitist media? Shun them. Don't read the New York Times. Don't buy Time magazine. Minimum Rage: When The New York Times calls your argument "straightforward" and a CNN host calls your opponents' arguments "a lot of bull," you can probably count the media on your side. That's exactly what Democrats are seeing in the media's approach to minimum wage increases — an issue designed to turn out liberal voters in at least six states this fall. N.Y. Times: Better dead than read. We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail. But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times. Downsizing the New York Times. Normally, this would be a juicy target for series of articles on the front and business pages of the New York Times. You know the drill: a parade of blue collar people victimized by the Bush administration, and now facing a bleak future. Meanwhile the insiders make out fine. There's even a fat cat CEO whose compensation package has done a whole lot better than its profits or stock. … But today, the company in question is the New York Times Company. So don't expect the same rules to apply. The newspaper of wreckage. On June 22, the paper trumpeted its expose of "a secret Bush administration program" to track terror finances. … But by July 2, smarting from the public backlash against its blabbermouth coverage, the Times crew was backpedaling faster than circus monkeys on barrels hurtling over Niagara Falls. Suddenly, the "secret" was no secret at all. Because the New York Times says so. According to America's leading journalists, the United States government cannot run clandestine operations. Indeed, it cannot keep secrets or do anything in secret — if the press thinks "the people" should know about it. I put "the people" in quotation marks because for the press, it seems, "the people" are an abstraction. It needn't matter that the public understands some things should be kept secret; the press will tell them for their own good. Who is the real threat to America? Sometimes you have to just wonder if these liberal geniuses at the New York Times and elsewhere have the slightest scintilla of common sense, let alone goodwill. Gun laws breed corruption. Ordinary citizens who have had death threats or those who operate small businesses in high crime neighborhoods have little hope of obtaining a [concealed weapon] permit. And using an unlicensed gun to defend oneself in New York City is a guarantee of serious prison time, no matter how legitimate the defensive need. According to information obtained through leaks and the Freedom of Information Act, many NYC permitees are celebrities and political cronies. The last time information was released, celebrity permit holders included … Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the rabidly anti-gun New York Times. Troops targeted by ACLU and anti-war media. Having spent eight months in Iraq as a volunteer to assist the military in security, I can assure your readers that these one-sided, anti-U.S. press releases serve only as an instrument by which radical Arabic news agencies print large bold headlines depicting our service personnel as monsters. I have seen those articles and they are sickening. The Worst of (the) Times. It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America so as to reach out to our enemies in the War on Terror. Déjà Vu, All Over Again. The New York Times and its wars against John Bolton and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. New York Times Once Again Does Its Best To Thwart the War On Terror. Sometimes you really have to wonder if The New York Times is on the Al Queda payroll. Not content with exposing, and thus making worthless the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Old Gray Lady has a lengthy exclusive on a CIA/Treasury Department program to monitor financial transaction of suspected terrorists. Secession. I assume the Republican National Committee is busy recording and archiving the idiotic statements coming out of national Democratic Party leaders and commentators. The opinion pages of the New York Times (that would be pages The First, Refuge of Scoundrels. The New York Times' First Amendment and public interest smokescreens are absurd. As everyone else, they have a right to speak and publish their ideas, opinions and thoughts. But they have no right to shout fire in a theater — or betray legitimate national security secrets — no matter how big and powerful they are. The press needs to stop confusing the two. The terrorist-tipping Times: The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities. Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government. On the other hand... It is No Crime When Journalists Report What's Public. Lawyer Buddy Parker assumed years ago that the U.S. government had tracked every penny that went into and out of the accounts of his client, suspected of laundering money for terrorists. What he can't comprehend is the stir created by reports that the feds are monitoring international banking records. "It's a yawner," says Parker, a former assistant U.S. attorney and now a white-collar defense lawyer in Atlanta. Protecting secrets calls for strong measures. Yet another leak of highly classified intelligence has made fighting terrorists more difficult. But the media claim they — not our elected leaders — know what's best for the country. Bad Manners in the Media. What will the Justice Department do about a little-known law that seems to make just this type of disclosure clearly illegal? Some of my best friends are journalists. You cannot balance what you have not weighed, and you cannot weigh what you cannot measure. Neither of the Times Two possesses the capacity, background, experience or learning to judge the extent of the assistance they have rendered terrorists. No "expert" they could consult would be in a position to contradict the government's strong assertions of the danger they were putting innocents in via their recklessness. "Show me the money!". The paper that boasts about delivering "all the news that's fit to print" defends its right to divulge state secrets by arrogantly claiming that "the public has the right to know." The New York Times strikes again. Do you think that style-setter of American journalism — The New York Times — would have run its expose of still another terrorist-tracking program if it had found out about it when the program was first set in motion, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks? Not All the News Is Fit to Print. During World War II the United States government's Office of War Information spearheaded a national campaign whose most well-known slogan was "Loose Lips Sink Ships." … The Bush administration should institute a similar campaign that instructs citizens of both the real dangers of proliferating classified information and that the meaning of the First Amendment is not a license to publish anything. House Roll Call Vote on Intelligence Leaks. The 227-183 roll call Thursday [6/29/2006] by which the House passed a resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing. More New York Times Distortions of the Rich: It is impossible that the Bush tax cuts of June 2003 contributed to relatively lower tax payments by the very richest Americans in 2002. But New York Times writer David Cay Johnston conveniently avoids this fact…. Slurring Bush at the New York Times. The utter disdain of New York Times reporters for President Bush makes a mockery of the supposed "separation of church and state" (putatively reporting neutrally, editorializing from the left) in their brand of journalism. The Times' condescension or loathing of the President seeps into news stories subtly. What is the New York Times Promoting? "Personnel is policy" is an old axiom in politics. It also applies to the world of journalism, as evidenced by recent developments at The New York Times, which has been trending even further left with recent appointments. First, the Times promoted crusading liberal editorial page editor Howell Raines, who once publicly mourned that "the Reagan years oppressed me," to editor-in-chief. Now, Richard Berke, the paper's national political correspondent since 1993, is being promoted to Washington editor, the number-two job in a bureau of more than 50 people. The Al-Qaeda Times: You could call it "Treason Central," or "al Qaeda West," but no matter what you call it, the building housing the once-august New York Times at 229 West 43rd St. in New York City is a beehive of anti-American hostility, where selling out the nation's secrets has become the newspaper's stock in trade. All the News That's Fit to Prosecute. The congressional rebuke of the paper makes it clear that the American people, speaking through their representatives, are more distressed by the help given to al Qaeda by the Times than by some purely hypothetical danger to civil liberties. This just in ... Karl Rove Secretly Runs The New York Times. In a stunning development that would appear to have broad implications for the independence of America's newspaper industry, New York Times Publisher, Edwin 'Pinch' Sulzberger today revealed that longtime President Bush advisor Karl Rove has been secretly running the Times' news and editorial operation for almost four years. The right not to know: Once more the spoiler. Despite the earnest persuasion of the White House to preserve a useful weapon in the war against the terrorists, the New York Times has revealed the workings of a covert surveillance program, indisputably within the law, to use administrative subpoenas to examine, through a Belgian financial consortium known by the acronym SWIFT, the financing of international terrorism. The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives. The Truth About Torture: "If an enemy devised a diabolical plot to darken America's image, it is hard to imagine anything operating more efficiently toward that end than the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The implication behind this false statement, which began a June 18 New York Times story by Scott Shane, is that the U.S. is torturing prisoners. The CIA Is Still After Bush. The Washington Post on July 9 published an article, "When in Doubt, Publish," which began by saying that, "It is the business — and the responsibility — of the press to reveal secrets." It was signed by five major figures involved in the field of journalism education. … In the process of trying to sound like guardians of the public's right to know, they disclosed their preference for keeping the American people in the dark about what the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says is a major faction of the CIA that is deliberately subverting the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Prosecute the New York Times. Gabriel Schoenfeld … explains, "By means of that disclosure, the New York Times has tipped off al Qaeda, our declared mortal enemy, that we have been listening to every one of its communications that we have been able to locate, and have succeeded in doing so even as its operatives switch from line to line or location to location." Is Al-Jazeera Less Biased Than The New York Times? Sadly, this once again demonstrated how America's media are fighting a different battle than its soldiers. After all, for publications that have been voicing loud and almost constant opposition to this war for several years, any positive development that leads to their expressly desired troop withdrawal should be heralded from the rooftops. On their part, any behavior to the contrary indicates media that want the troops to leave, but only if they do so in loss and shame. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater: The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. … The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. … The government uses the data for terrorism investigations only, not such things as tax fraud or drug trafficking investigations. Aid and comfort: 'The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," says President Bush. That's one word. Here's another: Dangerous. The New York Times has again put its institutional arrogance and contempt for the duly elected current administration ahead of the security of the nation. Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us — from, presumably, ourselves. Gray Lady Down. The so-called mainstream media in general and The New York Times in particular are waging a relentless campaign undermining the war on terror. The Fourth Estate is beginning to look like a Fifth Column. The Soviets Had the KGB — Al Qaeda Has the NYT. America spends $40 billion per year on intelligence operations aimed at discovering our enemies' secret activities. All our enemies have to do is subscribe to the New York Times and, for as little as $4.65 per week, they can discover most of our secret operations — at least as long as a Republican is President. Laughable claims about the NSA "Scandal". It's clear that the New York Times is in big trouble with the announcement that the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the leaks behind its NSA surveillance story. The investigation is long overdue. The paper had been warned by the President that national security would be seriously jeopardized if this program were made public, but it nevertheless chose to print it anyway. The Gray Lady Toys with Treason. The New York Times … has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat. The New York Times vs. America. 2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, The New York Times. New York Times Company Spirals Further Downward. It is sad to watch a once-great company decline. Jobs are sacrificed, historic facilities closed, and an atmosphere of failure and fear usually permeates the surviving operations. When a company needs to sell-off profitable crown jewels to sustain the lagging less profitable pieces, it does not portend future happiness. The Press And the Rush To Judgment. Remember those January newspaper headlines heralding the survival of all 12 trapped miners in West Virginia? Even the august New York Times reported "12 Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion," but only one miner had actually survived. In the frenzy to scoop competitors, reporters failed their journalistic responsibility, and this penchant to rush to judgment before all the facts are verified is again occurring on two recent hot button issues — homeland security funding cuts to New York City and the Haditha civilian deaths. About that Quagmire… It's amazing — The New York Times editorial page yesterday had something positive to say about the present occupant of the White House. Not President Bush by name, of course. That would be going too far. But the paper of record acknowledged "truly astonishing" things are happening in the Middle East — noting dryly that "the Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances." Media reporting from Iraq is one-sided and flawed. If you rely on newspapers and TV networks for your news, chances are you have no idea that the controversial performance of Western reporters in Iraq is emerging as a big issue. The mainstream media have virtually ignored the stunning charges made by John Burns, the New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. Great Gray Lady in spat with saloon hussy: The New York Times was in high dudgeon this week upon discovering that Fox News chairman Roger Ailes sent a letter to the Bush White House nine days after Sept. 11. As the corpses of thousands of his fellow Americans lay in smoldering heaps, Ailes evidently recommended getting rough with the terrorists. Lockstep on the Left: In the past few weeks, the erudite leftist writers and editors of the New York Times have tried to enlighten the unsophisticated American public about the possible war against Iraq. The Media Middle: The immediate ad hominem attacks on President Bush after the terrorist acts by Jennings of ABC, Dowd of the New York Times, Shields of PBS, Andy Rooney of CBS, etc., are typical of the America-hating establishment mainstream press. This was a time when thousands of innocent American lives were lost in a dastardly act of war, yet these intellectually challenged media morons couldn't resist attacking their greatest conceived nemesis - a Republican president. The New York Times Still is not Sure Bush is 'Legitimate': Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it. New York Times Attacking President Bush: How depraved can the liberal media be? How despicable? How utterly anti-American? The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious broadside against President Bush in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country. Blurring distinctions between murderers and their victims: It's a journalistic atrocity to blur the distinction between murderers and their victims, but that's what both the New York Times and Newsweek decided to do in their lurid coverage of the Middle East. The New York Times Still is not Sure Bush is 'Legitimate': Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it. New York Times Attacking President Bush: How depraved can the liberal media be? How despicable? How utterly anti-American? The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious broadside against President Bush in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country. New York Times lowballs homeless numbers. Estimates of the number of homeless have a long history of politics trumping accuracy. When President Reagan was in office, the American media often quoted made-up figures from "advocates" along with the mantra that many of us were "one paycheck away" from living on the streets ourselves. But yesterday [1/2/2007], the New York Times published a surprisingly low estimate of the number of homeless. But this time, the estimate was for the number of homeless in France. Journalistic Malpractice in "Marriage is Dead" Report. On Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, the American people awoke to startling and disturbing news: for the first time ever, the majority of women in the country were living without a husband. ... [But] it's not true. The entire story (based on the work of one ax-grinding, irresponsible, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times) has been cooked up from willful, blatant and shameful distortions. Amazingly enough, none of the most respected and purportedly responsible media authorities have taken the trouble to call him on it. All the "News"? The latest in a long line of New York Times editorials disguised as "news" stories was a recent article suggesting that most American women today do not have husbands. Partly this was based on census data — but much more so on creative definitions. The Times defined "women" to include females as young as 16 and counted widows, who of course could not be widows unless they had once had a husband. Wives whose husbands were away in the military, or in prison, were also counted among women not living with a husband. The MoveOn discount: NY Times criticized for ad attacking top general. An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday [9/13/2007] that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper. ... Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for the full page ad headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." The New York Post ran a story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted. Subsidizing Sedition: The New York Times gives moveon.org a discount on a full-page ad smearing Gen. David Petraeus. Does anyone think for a minute that the Times would grant a similar discount for a group backing Petraeus? Did The New York Times Break the Law? Republican Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia is asking Democrat Henry Waxman, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to convene a hearing over the MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times calling General David Petraeus, "General Betray Us." Davis says The Times may have unlawfully subsidized the political message of MoveOn by giving it a discounted rate. 'General Betray Us' Ad Violated Election Law, Group Says. The formal complaint charges that the organizations responsible for the full-page ad that ran in the Sept. 10 New York Times violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as amended, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. N.Y. Times admits Petraeus ad sold to Moveon.org at 1/2 off. The old gray lady has some explaining to do. Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. MoveOn.org's demeaning attack: The overzealous liberal group MoveOn.org proved once again that one organization can make a difference — a bad one. MoveOn.org's ill-considered, outrageous New York Times newspaper ad calling Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, "General Betray Us" not only slimed a well-respected general, it distorted a very real and very serious debate about the course of the war. The New York Times and Sarbox: Having dug itself into a hole with inept handling of the MoveOn.org ad and its aftermath, the New York Times Company may soon find itself unable to put down its shovel. Few ironies approach the richness of the mess the firm may face with the regulatory requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Sauce for the Times: The Times, a media corporation that is a fountain of detailed editorial instructions about how the rest of the world should conduct its business, seems confused about how it conducts its own. The Times now says the appropriate rate for MoveOn.org's full-page ad should have been $142,000, a far cry from $65,000, which is what the group paid. So the discount of $77,000 constitutes a large soft-money contribution to a federally regulated political committee. The Times' horror of such contributions was expressed in its enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold. The McCain-Feingold Newspaper Price Control Act. Most newspaper editorial pages … support McCain-Feingold and other restrictions on campaign speech, which do not apply at least to editorial content of newspapers. One wonders if any newspapers will change their editorial line now that their publishers are facing the threat of government intervention in their own business."The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution." Did someone mention McCain-Feingold? The New York Times' Left-Wing Discount: Imagine if the New York Times gave half-price ad space to the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association. It would never happen, of course, but if it did, you can envision the left-wing clamor. Maybe the Times Can't Ad. The New York Times finally came clean this week, admitting that it gave MoveOn.org a steep discount for the group's disgusting ad denouncing Gen. David Petraeus — and the Federal Elections Commission is taking notice. As it turns out, a 1974 campaign-finance law makes it illegal for corporations to give money to political action committees like MoveOn. And the Times' $77,000 rate cut almost certainly amounts to a hefty in-kind donation — also illegal by the FEC's lights. Suppressed news: 'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story. A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a "a game changer." NYTimes Killed Story on Crooked Obama Donor. According to election fraud lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, The New York Times decided suddenly to drop all efforts last October to publish stories about the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) because it came to light that ACORN was a big donor to then presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign. Update: New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story. Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad. Killing A Story: How It's Done. In today's New York Times, Public Editor Clark Hoyt reveals the result of his investigation into the charge that the paper killed a story during the 2008 Presidential campaign in order to help Barack Obama. Hoyt concludes that the claim is "nonsense." ... But the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it. All the News That's Fit to Suppress: I've often said that it's the journalistic sins of omission that are more damning than the industry's sins of commission. Right on cue, the Times acknowledged this weekend that it had spiked a story on possible illegal coordination between left-wing activist groups ACORN and Project Vote and the Obama campaign just before Election Day. The charges involved Team Obama sharing top campaign donor lists with ACORN's supposedly nonpartisan canvassing arm, Project Vote (the same group Obama worked for as a Chicago community organizer). Back to The War With No Name Back to the Media Bias Page Back to the Home page |
