NEW YORK TIMES REAL DOGS OF WAR

Is there any depth these bottom feeding America haters will not stoop to advance their defeatest agenda?  I ask you. These fucking pussies think nothing of running video of a dying soldier, a dying soldier! What is holier?  But NO  IMAGES OF 9/11! TOO GRAPHIC! HIDE THE FLYING BURNING BODIES BY THE HUNDREDS! Hide the horror of what the declared enemy wrought on innocent Americans. It will be me and others in the blogosphere raising our paddles when thsi and papers like them liquidate and go at auction. You'll see. Down 40% and falling.  Over at Chron.com hat tip Wolffman via Sweetness and Light

IMAGES OF DYING SOLDIER RENEW WAR COVERAGE DEBATE   

WASHINGTON — A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.

The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, working for the Times, had their status as so-called embedded journalists suspended Tuesday by the Army corps in Baghdad, military officials said, because they violated a signed agreement not to publish photos or video of any wounded soldiers without official consent.

Too late! The military should suspend ALL TIMES SPIES AND LEAKERS!

New York Times foreign editor Susan Chira said Tuesday night that the newspaper initially did not contact the family of Army Staff Sgt. Hector Leija about the images because of a specific request from the Army to avoid such a direct contact.

You ignorant slut!

"The Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq," Chira said. "We have tried to write about the inevitable loss with extreme compassion."

Ha!  Compassion? Words mean something you animal.

She said that after the newspaper account, with a photograph of the soldier, was published Monday, a Times reporter in Baghdad made indirect efforts to tell the family of the video release later that day. The video was still available for viewing on the Times' Web site Tuesday night, when the newspaper notified clients of its photo service that the photograph at issue was no longer available and should be eliminated from any archives.

Read it all

UPDATE: A gorgeous story over at Breibart;

NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Times Co. posted a $648 million loss for the fourth quarter on Wednesday as it absorbed an $814.4 million charge to write down the value of its struggling New England properties, The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

The company said the non-cash charge reflected declines in current and projected results at the newspapers, which have been hit hard by the consolidations of key advertisers in the New England area as well as greater competition from online media.

The company originally paid $1.1 billion for the Globe in 1993 and $296 million for the Worcester paper in 2000.

The Times reported a loss amounting to $4.50 a share for the October- December period. It earned $63.1 million, or 43 cents a share, a year ago.

Comments

[Francis W. Porretto]

We've all suspected for a while that the Times is on the other side in this war. Well, I daresay we need no further proof of it.

To display the bodies of one's own nation's fallen servicemen in such a fashion is reprehensible beyond my power to express. Anyone with a modicum of decency would have known better, regardless of his politics. But decency apparently has no place in the calculations of the Times's potentates.

[lowandslow]

Debate? Debate? There should be no f*cking debate. You don't run videos or pictures of our soldiers dying period, end of debate.

[duncan]

Geez Atlas, I wonder how Mary Anne Pearle and the Pearle family feel about you running a picture of her husband/their son being decapitated?
What's the message here? It's okay to run violent photos when it serves the purpose of fueling the flames of retaliation and more violence, but not okay to run such photos if they cause people to reflect on the tragedy of war.
I have not seen the NYT photo in question,nor do I want to. However,I was quite disturbed to see the photo of Danny Pearle on this site. This is no way to respect the soul of a person, who by all accounts, was a good and decent man.
Shame.

[John Sobieski]

That's not a fair comparison. Pearle video was released by the TERRORISTS, and was everywhere and I am sure it does cause distress to the Pearles, but this is a photo/video that is released by a JOURNALIST. They signed an agreeement and just decided to break it. They didn't even bother to ask the parents. They just had their point they wanted to make, screw the soldier who they despise.

Maybe they should run over to the terrorists and ask if they can film some terrorists dying. Oh I forgot, the terrorists would kill them, not protect them like our soldiers do.

[duncan]

I'm sorry, the trauma caused by seeing such photos is the same no matter who photographed and released them. Anyone running such photos is guilty of perpetuating the trauma. Further, they lower the bar for what is acceptable in a civilized society. Running these photos empowers the murderous thugs responsible for these acts. Their intent is to frighten and intimidate and any person with an ounce of compassion will feel frightened, intimidated and perhaps even powerless, upon viewing these photos.
I therefore, call upon Atlas to take the photo of Danny Pearle's murder down from this site as a sign of respect for his wife, child and parents.

[duncan]

Day two and the ghastly photo of Danny Pearle's beheading remains on this website. Perhaps Atlas would like to explain her motivation for displaying this photo.
The persons responsible of Pearle's beheading intended to shock and intimidate when they photographed and released the photo of their deeds. By displaying these photos, Atlas helps these theugs achieve their agenda.

[Pamela Geller]

Did the Times run the Pearl video?

Anyone that can't make the distinction between the Pearl beheading - clearly an act of war - and running video of a dying soldier fighting for freedom (and assclowns that hold them in contempt) is beyond debate.

You are an idiot. An enlightened idiot right?

[duncan]

If you ask me if I approve of the Times running a video or photo of Pearle's beheading, I will tell you that I do not.
I beleive in being consistent.
This soldier and his family are as deserving of our respect as Danny Pearle's
Thank you for commenting on my intellect. Name calling is always a better alternative to intelligent debate.
Although, I strive for enlightenment I am humble enough to realize that I have yet to achieve this goal How about you?

[Marinetbryant]

Not only is showing the US serviceman reprehensible, it is supposed to be against the Geneva Convention. Of course the terrorists never signed that, did they? The rules that he, Mr. Duncan, applies to the US military does not apply to "freedom" fighters. Maybe the glow of his enlightenment makes it hard to read or research facts and apply them fairly and justly.

Tom

[songdongnigh]

Just despicable. No matter ones opinion of the war, what the NYT did is wrong.

Here is a part of the agreement all "imbeds” agree to (from Michelle Malkin):

"(11) Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties provided the following conditions are adhered to:

(a) Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service members prior consent.

(b) DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals "killed in action" will not be released. Names of KIAs may be released 24 hours after Next of Kin have been notified."

So, the press MAY NOT release names or images of KIAs until 24 hours after the DOD has notified the Next of Kin. No matter how the New York Times tries to obscure or excuse their actions, there is no way they had the authority to do what they did.

The NYT has crossed all bounds of human decency and descended to the level of the worst of Jihadist.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

[duncan]

Marinebryant
I agree that showing the photo of the dying US serviceman is reprehensible. I agree that it is against the Geneva convetion. I agree that the terrorists do not live by the Geneva convention.
What rules have I applied to the US military? Is Atlas in the military?
The rule that I am applying is simply one of common humans decency...to consider the feelings of the Pearle family and to take down the traumatic photo of their loved one being brutally murdered. As no one should see a photo of a US service man dying from wounds inflicted by terrorists, no one should see a photo of Danny Pearle being murdered by terrorists.
Please tell me how I am being inconsistent in my thinking. Please tell me how the hell you think I am siding with the enemy because of my request.

[filmex]

I first saw this video on BBC World, and at the time it was not known how seriously the soldier was injured.

However sad the occasion, this WAS newsworthy in that after first declaring the Sgt. was shot by a sniper in another building, the truth leaked out that it was believed he was accidentally shot by an Iraqi soldier on another floor of the building.

This is important as it shows just how hopeless our situation there is. The Iraqi security forces (all of them) are like children masquerading as soldiers. Four years and and a half trillion dollars haven't changed that simple fact.

These people have been killing each other for 1400 years. Only Sadaam's iron hand rule kept them in check as they were more afraid of him than of each other.

Whether we stay 50 years or 50 more days, this situation will resolve itself only when one side vanquishes the other. We are irrelevant.

Which is why it is important that Americans see visually the worthless waste of American lives.

One should ask who really hates America...those who can live quite comfortably with the endless slaughter of American kids, or those who want to do something about it.