Posted on 01/25/2014 11:57:18 PM PST by Olog-hai
Kudos to New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan for asking why the Times couldn’t provide much coverage of Wednesday’s March for Life. Hundreds, if not thousands of New Yorkers were there, so “Was this local participation, or the event itself, worthy of a news story in the paper of record? Apparently not.”
“The Times, in print, published only a stand-alone photograph of the event on Page A17 with a two-line caption on Thursday.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
"The Super Bowl happens every year, too. That's why the media doesn't cover it...."
When NOW and other Termagant Liberation groups marched for killing babies in Washington, there were pages of coverage for weeks in advance in the Washington Post. Maps of the march route, photos, biographies, etc. An entire “Style” section of the paper.
When the ombudsman investigated, she quoted one reporter as saying: “I don’t know anyone who’s pro-life.”
I believe that. That is precisely the point - that journalism is a cabal of people which is so incestuous that they quite literally think of themselves as “the public” - in the sense that their interest is “the public interest.”People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)The Associated Press newswire is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets which has been in process for over a century and a half; the result is an entire culture of arrogant self-entitlement, and of promotion of those who go along to get along, and denigration of those who do not do so (enough).The biggest lie they tell is that they are objective; that is inherently impossible for them to know in the first place, is demonstrably false in light of the history of what they systematically promote, and what they systematically denigrate. What they systematically promote is themselves, and what they systematically denigrate is, in Theodore Roosevelt’s famous formulation, “the man who is actually in the arena.”
“The man in the arena,” contrary to Elizabeth Warren and Barak Obama, actually did “build that.” That is the reason he owns that business; even if he bought it from someone else, he owned the purchase price because of some effort and/or serendipity not of Elizabeth Warren’s doing, and typically not of the doing of any politician. If the owner of a business has had it for any length of time, he has seen other businesses around him fail, and he could have failed too, had he not lain awake at night, trying to optimize his business. No doubt he built that business on a pre-existing road, upgraded by the government but almost certainly not initially placed there by government in a “bridge to nowhere” fashion.
NY Times prides itself on being “The Newspaper of Record” but their record is one of printing only the news that fits their bias and is always slanted in that direction unless and only when that slant becomes impossible to sustain. Since I refuse to read it and toss it in the refuse where it belongs, I suppose that there are times when it is accurate, however, for me, I cannot be bothered by it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.