Panic at "America's Leading Liberal Newspaper"

NY Press ^ | Russ Smith

[orangelobster]

JUDGING BY THE hysteria spilling from the New York Times during the run-up to the Republican convention in the city, you'd think that George W. Bush was thrashing Sen. John Kerry by 10 points in every single snapshot poll, whether national, "battleground," military, pro-abortion voters or German. This is not rational, but then the Times (in almost every section of the paper), is rapidly losing its grip on reality. In fact, the winner of November's election is a mystery today and will likely remain so until after the debates between Bush and Kerry, or if some unanticipated catastrophe should occur.

I'm as jaded about the Times' de facto coordination with the Democratic National Committee as anyone—and liberal pundits are incensed that a Texan Bush supporter gave less than a million bucks to seed the "scurrilous" Swift Boat Veterans?—but the daily's lead editorial on Aug. 29, "Abolish the Electoral College" gave cause for a double-take. This print grenade, lobbed just months before the election, was garbled, condescending, contradictory and, most of all, really nervous. I understand that "every vote counts" is a mantra hummed by both parties, and in Democratic circles simply code for "No More Floridas!" but why did the Times choose this particular time to oppose the most basic rule of presidential politics?

[L`enn]

which thwarts the will of the majority

If only they were a concerned about this concept as it relates to the judiciary.

[Diogenesis]

Sounds like the New York Times' staff
had a few threesomes with Kerry (e.g. Gilbey and Keller)
and now need the Times'-kept-Massachusetts-South-African-Judge
make --by her Majesty's judicial fiat-- their threesomes count.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[zarf]

One of the side benefits of a Bush victory in November....... is the prospect of watching the Times unravel...

Hilarious, and so true.

[sonofatpatcher2]

The NYT needs to understand the Mideast train of thought...

--------------------------------
To print out and wear as a Campaign Button, go HERE. Over 4,100 hits as of 9/4! Feel free to reuse this anywhere you wish...
Donate to Swift Boat Vets for the Truth HERE.

[what's up]

I saw Bill Keller (Executive Editor of NYT) last week on Cspan Roundtable.

Looked up who he was married to...Gilbey, the gin heiress.

Who is she renowned to have dated? Well, lo and behold....John Kerry himself.

Incestuous relationships all over the place.

[demkicker]

Love your toons!

[CasearianDaoist]

I would not confound all of NYC with the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan and the Village. There are plenty of conservatives here. Did not the the FDNY has endorsed Bush (hasn't the NYPD done this too?)The problem is vote fraud and the corrupt Democrat Machine.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is too much truth in this for comfort!

[no dems]

why did the Times choose this particular time to oppose the most basic rule of presidential politics? Because they are scared to death.

[stevem]

And there is no interest higher than making every vote count."

Or, in some cases, count more than once.

[MeekOneGOP]

[OldFriend]

Given that Evan Thomas of Newsweak acknoledged that the media has given the gigolo 15 points, I'd say the Slimes has much to fear.

[fish hawk]

Yeah but it makes such a good target.

[Grampa Dave]

Snore, another gay activist at the NY Slimes trying to play editor and flush our constitution down the drain.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1207463/posts

THE NEW YORK TIMES AND GAYS ["3/4 of the people deciding what’s on front page are...homosexuals"]
http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2001/05/14.html ^ | May 14, 2001 | Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid


Posted on 09/04/2004 12:59:53 PM PDT by Diago



By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid


May 14, 2001

---

At the recent New York Times annual meeting, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. turned in another amazing performance, acting ignorant about the paper’s pro-gay bias that is becoming a national embarrassment. A year ago we had raised the issue of Jesse Dirkhising, the 13 year-old boy who was raped and murdered by two homosexuals in Arkansas in September 1999. The media’s general failure to cover the murder stands in sharp contrast to the massive coverage of the death of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student in Wyoming. The Times hadn’t published a word on the Dirkhising case.


A year later, nothing had changed. In fact, when Cliff mentioned Dirkhising’s name again, Sulzberger still acted like it didn’t ring a bell. The Times’ failure to cover the case was mentioned by John Leo of U.S. News & World Report in a recent column in which he said, "Since the murder, not one story about the Jesse Dirkhising case has appeared in the New York Times." Andrew Sullivan of the New Republic, who is himself gay, told John Leo that the New York Times would rather go out of business than report the Dirkhising story.


This reflects a hard pro-gay bias. I told Sulzberger that Richard Burke, his national political reporter, has said openly, publicly, that homosexuals are now dominating the coverage of the New York Times. Specifically, here’s his quote: "There are times when you look at the front page meeting and literally three quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not so closeted homosexuals." I asked Sulzberger to comment on the paper’s pro-homosexual bias, and whether this is responsible for suppressing the Jesse Dirkhising story.

[Mobties]

It always strikes me as ironic that the sports editor of the Times understands that you can win the World Series four games to three while the losing team can score more runs. I think there have been a number of such championships, and everyone abides by the results. The only exception seems to be when a liberal democrat is the loser in such a contest.

[Stellar Dendrite]

bump

[Dont Mention the War]

JUDGING BY THE hysteria spilling from the New York Times during the run-up to the Republican convention in the city, you'd think that George W. Bush was thrashing Sen. John Kerry by 10 points in every single snapshot poll, whether national, "battleground," military, pro-abortion voters or German.

The Press still comes out on Wednesday, right? So this was probably written Monday or Tuesday.

Turns out Russ was right, but just a couple of days ahead of his time! Now Bush is up ten points!