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.
