Posted on 08/01/2007 3:46:35 PM PDT by Western Civ 4ever
Having failed to thwart a Murdoch purchase of the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the NEW YORK TIMES intensifies battle with the NEWS CORP. empire on Thursday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The paper is preparing a provocative examination of Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani's relationship with FOX NEWS chief Roger Ailes.
MORE
TIMES reporter Russ Buettner has been pestering and pumping Murdoch executives for details on Rudy and Roger, company sources claim.
The duo "have been pulling for each other for nearly two decades," reports Buettner.
"Ailes served as a consultant to Giuliani's first mayoral campaign. Giuliani officiated at Ailes' wedding and intervened when FOXNEWS blocked from securing a cable station in the city."
NYT editors have set a Page One placement for the report, insiders claim.
FOX says the Rudy and Roger relationship "has not and will not affect coverage, but Giuliani, the frontrunner, already has more face time on the network this year than any other candidate," zaps Buettner.
Developing...
Most of the talking heads on Fox News have been shilling for Giuliani since he first announced. The worst offender is Sean Hannity. Even though he professes to be a conservative, his poor judgement in backing liberal RINOs like Giuliani and Arnold make Hannity a liability for the conservative movement in the 2008 presidential race.
I don’t care how much one hates Rudy (and I am well aware that this venue has, as is it’s right, taken an unprecedented step of “deglamorizing” a single candidate, Guliani) but this should be beyond the pale for any organization that calls themselves a journalistic enterprise.
I may be wrong but it was my impression that this is not an editorial but a Page 1 Expose. Whether you hate Guliani or not, this kind of open-faced vendetta paraded as important news at the most questionable time should not be tolerated by anyone because your favored candidate could be next.
for decades the nyt controlled the direction of daily news.
tv news directors took their leads from the nyt.
Fox News is an absolute joke. I monitored all three cable news channels on the bridge collapse and Fox was worse than Olbermann and Abrahms on MSNBC. They managed to miss a press conference while Greta was on. They interviewed Mark Fuhrman as if had anything to add to the coverage anymore than I did or any other half way intelligent viewer. I think they also interviewed someone who sounded like the forensic pathologist Michael Baden but I am not sure, I did not stay on it that long. John Gibson, Geraldo Rivera, Mark Fuhrman, and Greta von Sustern all made big splashes for Ailes on CNBC during the O J trial. But Ailes is still covering bridges collapses as if it was the O J trial. Shep Smith and his producers did an EXCELLENT job reporting the bridge collapse and CNN did not get their local feeds up for about an hour while Fox had two locals, but after that Anderson Cooper and CNN made Fox look pathetic with their OJ expert has beens.
My point is this website has plenty of heavyweight posters to expose Rudy as he is or isn’t. I have great respect for this forum and Jim Robinson’s creativity but when a particular candidate is not only in the keywords at the top of the latest articles page but is highlighted in red then that is active “deglamorizing.”
By the way I generally agree with that assessment, hence deglamorizing is appropriate verbage. If I didn’t agree I would have phrased it “villifying” “demonizing’ yada, yada.
My main point was that this is a particuarly anti-Republican move by NYT, brazen in it’s obvious partisanship under the guise of unbiased journalism. You may agree with the NYT’s agenda but I think that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
No, I’m not wrong. I no longer rely on what politicians say about other politicians — I go to the source when possible. View the raw numbers here: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us (click on “City Revenue and Spending since 1980” in the sidebar). Take a look at Giuliani’s revenue and expenditure picture — I don’t see a major difference compared to Dinkins’.
But that’s a summary overview without much detail — let’s take a more detailed look at the area that Giuliani likes to tout: the number of city employees/size of government on his watch. He brags about cutting the size of government (as measured by city employment), and in his first term, he did — he cut the number of full-time NYC employees by more than 11,000 people, or about 5%. But then in his second term, he increased the number of full-time NYC employees by more than 12,000, or about 5.2%. By contrast, Dinkins increased the number of full-time NYC employees by about one-half of one percent.
But that doesn’t tell the full story — you also have to look at personnel spending, which includes both part-time and full-time city employees. In Giuliani’s first term, employee expenditures increased by 1.3 billion dollars, or about 8%! So while he was taking credit for slashing full-time employees, he was actually spending significantly more on personnel (whether it was by hiring part-time employees, or paying overtime, etc.).
His second term was even worse — personnel expenses increased by nearly 4.8 billion dollars, or 22%. But let’s drop 2001 out of the picture, with the assumption that there were surely extraordinary personnel expenses required in conjuction with 9/11. In the three years of Giuliani’s term covering 1998-2000, Giuliani increased city personnel expenses 2.8 billion dollars, or 14%! Contrast that with Dinkins, who in his four year term increased personnel expenses by 13%.
The upshot is that this, an area that Giuliani likes to tout as an example of his fiscal conservatism, and one that he claims as one of his goals as president, turns out to be pretty much fraudulent when you dig into the details.
Thanks for that link/analysis — I hadn’t seen that. Ping to some more info in post 28.
Pinch does not care. He has special class Family stock to keep him in power as the Empire crumbles.
I agree — I was astounded that he tried to justify his stance on social issues by claiming that he is the candidate who supports the principle of individual liberty. The man can’t even stomach tiny individual liberties, like owning ferrets, or carrying pepper spray! What a fraud.
Rudy is the “tough on crime”, but soft on personal defense candidate....
Exactly (except when the crime is coming from his own people, he’s pretty soft on that, too).
He also made it clear that KOS is far, far worse and called it the 'Klu Klux Klan.'
BO is an ally. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I was about to say. Yes. indeed. The NYT is running scared.
Probably the biggest kicker of all was him endorsing Cuomo in 1998. I mean, come on. Ok, good job as mayor, but president? Cracker, please!
Liberal of not, he made the trains run on time, so to speak. Other mayors, going back to 1970, had run the city into the ground.
I was flipping through the channels and low and behold...you’ve got PBS taking aim at the WSJ purchase. I didn’t watch much of it...but what I did watch was hilarious...the lefties are shaking in their boots...I guess losing control of an important paper like WSJ...scares the woolys out of ‘em.
Yeah, so did Mussolini.
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.