The Day The New York Times Died

                      WE ARE AT WAR YOU TREASONOUS SNAKES!

The New York Times died yesterday, officially.

The four above photos ran on the FRONT PAGE on The New York Times yesterday. All four, with the following caption. The online edition ran only one of the photos but if you click on it all four will pop up.

After meeting with reporters in Beijing, Mr. Bush tried to exit through a locked door. Realizing the mistake, he made a mock grimace, and an aide pointed the way. He joked: "I was trying to escape. It didn't work."

This is a new low, even for The New York Slimes.

The Times has never done a front page story on Oil For Food, the largest, most egregious international white collar crime in world history. Never made the front page. But the above four photos did. This  is beneath even The Globe and The Examiner,  they would never sink so low.
More here. The New York Times is dead.

Had to actually buy it to scan it.......yech.

UPDATE: Abu Ali found guilty of plotting to assassinate the President of the United States. Do you think the clowns over at the New York _{waste of} Times will bother to run it? Michael Isikoff over at Newsweak didn't think that would happen here.

Comments

[nikko]

Good ol' Pinchy--In there rooting for the bad guys as always. What a freaking mess...crash and burn, you idiots.

[Matt]

Fuckin' right we're at war! We go to war with the President we've got, not necessarily the one we'd like.

The NY Times was as obsessed with Clinton's lies as any other media outlet, liberal or otherwise. Is it so wrong for them to point out the mere buffoonery of your current CinC? It kind of makes up for them giving Ms. RunAmok free rein in expounding the administration's poorly substantiated claims of Saddam having WMDs, doesn't it?

If ridiculing one's elected officials were treasonous, we'd have to lock up every comedian. It's not, because you don't live in a police state. Not yet, anyway.

[courtney]

THANK YOU FOR THE SCANNED PIC!!! In an moment of shock and incredulity I went to check the NY Slimes website for the image because I actually thought for a second that there is NO SHOT IN HELL THAT WAS FRONT PAGE NEWS. Lo and behold... there it is. New journalistic lows have be found. I hope that Pajamas media starts putting this kind of bullshit reporting on the backburner and out of the average American readers' hands. Down with the NY waste of Time!

[courtney]

Come on Matt, putting that on the front page was total bs... want to knock him? then go and do it in a way mildly resembling journalistic standards, in the op-ed section, not a HUGE PHOTO ESSAY TAKING UP 1/4TH OF THE FRONT PAGE - NEWS, YES, NEWS, NOT OPINION, BELONGS THERE. I would have rather seen the typical opinion-article-spun-as-news-article they usually have there because this surpasses absurd. Write an op-ed piece about it, fine, a stupid one at that, about Dubya pulling on a locked door, but it sure doesn't belong on the front page. Then again, its the New York Slimes... what is this now, the umpteenth time they've ignored jounalistic standards?

[nikko]

What president do wyou wish to have conduct this GWOT? Bill "BJ" Clinton, John "Hanoi" Kerry or Jimmah "Clueless" Carter?

[C Max]

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2130883

Above is a link to Christopher Hitchens' new article, scolding both political parties for the level this debate has descended to, while at the same time chiding the Democrats for failing to oust Saddam when they had the power to do it; then failing to support his ouster once they were out of power; while the entire time demanding he be ousted.

Note to Matt:

I correctly guessed that any New York Times reporter who refused to toe the line and, perhaps, um, lie about who her source was, or what he told her, would be excoriated by the left.

She's getting Tripped, as in, Linda Tripp. The woman tells the truth and in the process says something you don't like, and it's time to assassinate her character, print pictures of her looking like a witch, piss and moan about her reporting in Iraq, suggest she was screwing Scooter Libby, and generally spread whatever vile and scurrilous gossip your imaginations can handle about her.

Is the left going to start attacking Bob Woodward now? Ooops -- I almost missed it. The attacks have already started!

This time the WAPO got to fire the first shot. After all, Woodward got into the "family" because of the WAPO, just like Judith Miller got in to the New York mob because of the Times. So it's up to the newspapers to make sure Miller's and Woodward's credibility, and their careers, sleep with the fishes.

Talk about McCarthyism? That MSM press corps can be murder.

[Sharku]

Posted by: Matt

"If ridiculing one's elected officials were treasonous, we'd have to lock up every comedian. It's not, because you don't live in a police state. Not yet, anyway."

The problem is the New York Slimes is not supposed to be a comedian.

[monkyboy]

The New York Times is a business, Sharku.

Their only job is to sell as many papers as possible. No doubt this issue will sell well.

[C Max]

Monkyboy:

You mean that whole "Murrow" movie George Clooney just did was all BS? All that stuff about the press being the fourth estate in the gallery -- more important to the people even than the three estates of government?

The cynical heart of liberalism, stripped bare.

[monkyboy]

I agree, CMax, it's sad to see it's all about the money.

No different than the people who started a war for profit.

Left or right are just labels.

The real question should be - how much did you make on the war? How much is our continued presence in Iraq making you?

We know Dick Cheney has made $10 million this year alone...

[Thomas Carney]

Matt wrote: [i]"The NY Times was as obsessed with Clinton's lies as any other media outlet, liberal or otherwise. Is it so wrong for them to point out the mere buffoonery of your current CinC?"[/i]

Matt, give us a break. The NY Slimes was, and still is, in love with the Clintons. They gave Clinton pass after pass.

After the Jayson Blair incident (yes, I did spell his name right) and the Slime did virtually nothing to repair their MISMANAGEMENT that caused a LIAR to prosper, you're going to tell me the NY Slimes a fair paper????

Man, I don't what your doc perscribed, but it's some good sh_t.

[wrapper]

I'm surprised they did that. It ain't news.

[courtney]

Thomas -
I just graduated from U of M and was around for the Blair embarrasment that disgraced a longstanding and well regarded school of journalism. He was a prime example of purely unethical journalistic practices going unchecked...
This caused major revamping at UMD's journalism school...Oddly, this scandal did not cause for a stir in the management of the NY times.

[Eg]

I wonder why the NYSlimes thought the expression was {Note: Links provided NOT for children or the faint of heart}'mocked?' ...and inventive to giggles.

There hasn't been a mass murderer, dictator or tyrant they haven't loved either.

[C Max]

There Monkyboy goes with that meme again. War for oil... Halliburton.

The days, however, the only ones who are being investigated for making money off government contracts are Pelosi and Murtha. Funny how, with liberals, lies are always the "truth," and the truth is always a "lie."

You put a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters, and eventually they'll write Shakespeare; but all you need is one Monkyboy at one keyboard, and you've got a lifetime supply of bullshit.

[monkyboy]

While the trillion dollars worth of oil that lies under the Iraqi sand is a powerful lure, it is small change compared to the $600 billion a year that the U.S. spends on "defense."

Halliburton is the poster child for Republican corruption, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Bechtel, Bearingpoint LLC, the Carlyle Group, etc. are all direct pipelines for government money to flow into Republican pockets.

I'll make one crazy prediction:

The government pays more money to millionaires out of the "defense" budget than it does to our troops...and if you think that much money has no bearing on our Iraq policy, then you would have no objections to an inquiry into who is making money off the "war" on terror.

[C Max]

Monkyboy:

You need something called probable cause before you can start digging around in private peoples' private records.

I thought you guys were the ones who cared about privacy rights being violated. What's that? Oh, I see, those rights don't apply when it's YOUR political enemy in the crosshairs. Do they also have to be registered Repubicans in order to qualify for your little inquisition?

[Pamela aka Atlas]

Gaze

[Mike]

wow it sounds like Monkey boy was spoonfed everything By Moore.

Considering Cheny Divested all stocks in Halliburton before it took a nasty nose dive in the stocks because Newspapers like the WaPo were complaining about it (funny thing was WaPo and other complained that cheny sold his stocks after Halliburton's nose dive)He has now no connection to Halliburton. Unlike Michael Moore who does own Halliburton's stock.

Number two, if we wanted oil so bad, why even go to war in the first place, We could have just repealed sanctions on Iraq.

Number three why did republicans and Dems Voted down a Bill that would open up ANWR and offshore drilling to oil companies the, you know the ones that feed money into the republicans.

[Kevin Mark Smith]

It's actually healthy to buy that rag once in a blue moon to remind us why we aren't liberals, and that it's the loony left not the rational right that is being unduly influenced by the liberal media bias. Remember the Sedition Act? Washington and Adams used it to silence Jefferson; I suspect that even the man who wrote the Declaration might see a purpose to it now when such filth is being reported as news during a time of war.

Treacherous bastards!

[Doc]

"Remember the Sedition Act? Washington and Adams used it to silence Jefferson; I suspect that even the man who wrote the Declaration might see a purpose to it now when such filth is being reported as news during a time of war.."

Not to be snarky, but you obviously are unfamiliar with your history. There was this whole messy affair in the press between Adams and Jefferson - take a look at the whole thing. It sheds light on the issue from an early American perspective. This coming from, of course, a looney liberal who has no ability to be rational. LOL...

I seriously doubt that you would ever want bans on the press...is that really a worthy response to the Times? Indeed, I think its over-reaching.

Remember, it is a free press...AND apparently the Times sells enough papers to stay in business...it's all of us DAMNED looney, half-cocked, lazy, dowdy headed, crack smokin', hate-filled, anti-War, hate-Bush liberals.

LMAo

[C Max]

Doc:

The NYT's circulation was down yet another 10-15% this year. Circulation has dropped like a stone since it began its vendetta against the Bush administration.

Trend?

[Ian Wood]

Those who argue for a reduction or elimination of media bias, to be somehow carried out by the media itself so as to maintain its illusory independence, are the equivalent of a 5th-century Athenian arguing that anyone who made a speech had a duty to present only the undisguised truth and make no attempt to sway his audience with any rhetorical tricks.

The only reason people want guaranteed objectivity from their information sources is because they're mental slobs. Lazy, passive absorbers of factoids who don't want to have to think very hard about what's going on in the world, who's telling them about what's going on in the world, and what relationship those two information streams have to each other and to reality. They would like it very much if their information came in easy - to - digest packets of strained goo.

But it doesn't, it never has, and if someone tells you otherwise they're either fooled or lying to you.

Today's media consumer is responsible for his own intellectual development and the fine-tuning of his own discernment. If someone is foolish enough to be affected by the NYT's photographic choices, it does not then become that newspaper's duty to change its ways in order to better accomodate the readily confused.

[Skeptic]

No, the only reason people demand objectivity from journalists is that they have claimed to be a PROFESSION. In most peoples' minds, this means a calling in which people are dedicated to some ethic which is reinforced from within the profession. Journalists have claimed as their ethic the standard of objectivity and (surprise) people expect them to adhere to it and for the professional groups to decry any member of the profession who violates it. The current lack of professionalism by an ever increasing portion of the press is destroying a compact of trust with the American people which will take decades to rebuild.

[Ian Wood]

A "compact of trust" is something you establish with a profession where abdication of that trust results in death or disaster, such as physicians or engineers (or, arguably, politicians...but I wince as I type it).

Such a "compact" with those who relay information is a fantasy at best, and does far more harm than good.

[Lawrence]

Is Matt stupid, or just liberal? Oh wait, today, just for asking, we hit the trifecta! He's liberal, stupid, and (maybe) Canadian.

Matt, if you are Canadian, I suggest you learn something beyond your bad attempts at potty humour and read more intelligent blogs like atlas shrugged; http://angrygwn.mu.nu/ is a good place to start.

Now, since you seem unable to distinguish between a police state and ordinary citizens' outrage at editorial choice, please allow me to help you.

Nobody has said that what the NYT did was treasonous except you (of course). What is being expressed on this blogsite is the dismay over the choices made by the editors at NYT.

You see, Matt, the choices people make reflect their values. The values held by most staff at NYT are out of the mainstream of values held by most Americans.

Now, I understand this may be a bit difficult for you to digest, but keep coming back -- you'll get it ... maybe.

[TM Lutas]

Old news, very old news.

The interesting question is who is the newspaper of record now that the Times has abdicated and when will "the cool kids" catch on that they're embarrasing themselves by continuing to subscribe and give any importance to the NY Times.

[Billy Beck]

"The NY Times was as obsessed with Clinton's lies as any other media outlet, liberal or otherwise."

Uh-huh. That must be why, for example, Roger Morris' political biography "Partners In Power" went six weeks on their own best-seller list before they finally had to review it.

Anyone who thinks the Times was paying attention to The Ozark Long March simply does not know what was going on.

...which is actually the whole point here.

[Kevin Newman]

The NY Times has done 18 front page stories on "oil for food". http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22oil+for+food%22&srchst=nyt&d=nytdsection%2b&o=e%2b&v=Front%20Page%2b&c=a%2b&sort=newest&n=10&dp=0&daterange=full&frow=0

If you can't fact check simple stuff like this, you aren't going to do much to change the world as a citizen journalist.

[Pamela aka Atlas]

Apparently, Bill O'Reilly had a segment on his show last night where he accused the New York Times of having an agenda to oust Bush -- for example, they have had the Prisoner Abuse story on the front page of the Times for 28 days in a row, even though there has been no news for 10 days (even to the point of relegating the story about the seven terror suspects to the middle pages of the paper).

There was an editors' meeting at the Times this morning. The O'Reilly piece was a subject of conversation. But, during the discussion, one of the editors actually said that they would have to alter their "strategy" to be less overt and draw less public criticism from the likes of O'Reilly!

The editor didn't say specifically that there was a "strategy" to oust Bush, but the editor did imply that there is some sort of strategy "at play" in the Editorial board at the Times. This is the first time I've heard actual proof of a coordinated effort there to actually campaign against the President and damage him.

So, there you have it -- the New York Times is actually at war with the Bush administration.

Posted on 05/28/2004 7:14:34 AM PDT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143835/posts

[Kevin Newman]

C-Max:

I don't think that it is a trend. In fact, the circulation isn't down at all: http://www.nytco.com/investors-nyt-circulation.html