Murdoch/NY Post Soft on Hillary

Opinion Times ^ | 8/15/05 | Jim Pfaff

[HallowThisGround]

Those who make brutalizing statements about others typically give them in terms which indict themselves.

The New York Times is calling Clinton and Murdoch "An Unlikely Alliance" by pointing to the way it's nemisis, the New York Post, blasted newly announced Senate candidate Jannine Pirro and her criminal husband. Strange for the conservative Standard Bearer in The City. But this is not half as interesting to me as this:

The Post has long been a red-meat smorgasbord for conservatives, even as its tangy gossip columns and relentless media coverage have found a market among the Manhattan elite of all persuasions. The tatty but tenacious tabloid is a blunt but effective journalistic tool, using looser standards to float articles and themes that other news outlets will not touch - until, of course, they are published in The Post.

Funny. Antonymize the term "conservatives" and replace "Post" with "Times" (another antonymization), and this is exactly my description of the New York Times.

[melt]

The condescending NY Times has the gall to criticize the NY Post for "using looser standards to float articles and themes that other news outlets will not touch".

Yeah, like the floater Jayson Blair never made up false stories at the NY Times; its buddy Dan Ra^ther never floated his "false , but accurate" report on Bush; and its comrades at Newsweek never floated their false "Koran Flushing" story.

Just thought I'd float out my humble opinion about the NY Times.

And the Murdoch/Clinton linkage is probably just another wishful floater.