[Former Military Chick]

So the Guardian is reprinting that the Bush Team is at war with the NYT, well it is about time.

The NYT is a liberal rag that takes many liberties without apology.

[Coop]

"I admit we're puzzled over what seems to be a more intense antipathy at this White House, especially since the campaign heated up.

This rocket scientist may be the only one left in America who's puzzled over this long overdue response.

[OSHA]

"I admit we're puzzled over what seems to be a more intense antipathy at this White House, especially since the campaign heated up.

LOL I'll take Bush Bashing for $200. Alex.

[wideawake]

It seems like the legacy media believes that the job of the executive is to fawn over the press.

That's an outdated attitude.

[sarasota]

That's laying it down. Pile it on!

[madprof98]

"All of you ... up and down the west coast, the east coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street, let me clue you in: we don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America - busy, working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or The LA Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!"

Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Mike Bates]

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[Frances_Marion]

"When Democrats jumped on the remark, dubbing it the "January surprise", the Republican National Committee chairman, Ed Gillespie, dismissed the Times's work as "Kitty Kelley journalism"

Or maybe "Justin Blair" journalism would be more fitting....where there's smoke, there's fire.

[No Longer Free State]

"I can only speculate, but some of it may be that they think whacking a big newspaper with 'New York' in its name plays well with the [conservative] base. Perhaps they think if they beat up on us, we'll go soft on them. Or maybe they have decided to blame the newsroom for our opinion pages, though they certainly know that the editorial writers and columnists operate completely independent of reporters and editors."

I'm SOOO tired of this stupid argument against our well-founded claims of liberal bias. Do the idiot reporters and editors that twist the news ala the NYT and SeeBS think we are stupid enough to believe they don't read the editorials printed in their own papers or shown on their own networks? Of COURSE they do!!! They see the writing on the wall (literally). They know what attitudes & opinions they are expected to support in their selection & telling of stories if they want to be towards the front of the line for Christmas bonuses and promotion to editorial positions.

If there's a wall of separation between the editorial and news divisions, it's as transparent as the wall between the editorial boards and the fax machine that runs out Terry McAwful's talking points.

[mollynme]

Ron Suskind's reporting was carefully reported and vigorously fact-checked

They were obviously referring to the part of the article that likened the President's faith to islamic fundamentalism.

[SmithL]

nobody connected with the Bush-Cheney campaign appears even slightly concerned about being caught denigrating the Times; they are more than happy to do it on the record

Me Too!
I'll go on the record denigrating the Slimes.

[Elvis van Foster]

The Times has an openly gay editorial staff, according to member Richard Berke.

[Argus]

the Bush campaign's harsh accusation that respected journalist Suskind and the editors of the Times are liars

"Respected" by whom?

[Poodlebrain]

Has the Guardian reported that the New York Times is at war with the Bush Administration? They are on record endorsing his opponent and calling President Bush's presidency "disastrous", but that is less objectionable than the Bush Administration criticizing the New York Times for what it claims are reporting inaccuracies and therefore refusing to cooperate with the Times.

I'm just stunned by the gall of an institution that thinks it should be able to exhibit animus against individuals without adverse reaction.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Egad....I can't wait for this election to be over with. I think I'll concentrate on MLB playoffs on weekdays and college and NFL games on Saturday and Sunday. That should be enough of a diversion until the shit hits the fan on 11/2/04.

[Straight Vermonter]

Or maybe they have decided to blame the newsroom for our opinion pages, though they certainly know that the editorial writers and columnists operate completely independent of reporters and editors

Damn, those guys owe me a new keyboard.

[siunevada]

What they have basically done by words and deeds is to say to the New York Times: 'We don't need you. We can get our message out without you.'"

Boo freakin' hoo.

The bosom buddies at The Guardian and The New York Times think it is 'news' that no one needs them? Man, you could have written that ten years ago, it's not news now.

[colorado tanker]

The NYT is making itself irrelevant. Even liberals now send their important op-ed pieces to the Wall Street Journal.

[saleman]

It always amazes me how seriously journalist take themselves and their colleagues. They'll make excuses, rationalize, defend, cry, wail and whine when someone in power dismisses them.

They just don't get it. No longer do politicians have to suck up to these rags. Oh, you didn't get your seat on the plane? Well tough you self important little creep. I didn't get to fly with the prez either.

Sorry guy's it's true. Us in "flyover country" don't need you, don't want you, and don't care what your opinions are.

[ModelBreaker]

The NYT has been at war with Bush for a long time. Glad that Bush is finally waging it back.

[CriticalJ]

I 8 out of every 10 people I know or meet started to call me biased or a racist or whatever, I thing I would do a introspective examination.

When 8 out of 10 people tell the media that they are biased, the call the 8 ignorant Republicans. The simple fact that they won't even investigate the assertions prove the assertions.