Posted on 02/22/2008 10:43:54 AM PST by RatherBiased.com
The fallout continues from yesterday's New York Times hit piece on John McCain, and the paper itself doesn't seem eager to put up a fight, while network news broadcasts, liberal bloggers, and the general public are questioning the paper's journalistic standards.
Yesterday's inflammatory Times story, which used anonymous sources to forward nine-year-old allegations from his first presidential run suggesting an improper relationship by John McCain with a female telecommunications lobbyist, received prominent front-page placement yet today's follow-up on McCain's press conference was relegated to page 20. [...]
All the networks led with the story, but did feature criticism of the Times's standards. [...]
Ben Smith at The Politico rounded up the surprisingly critical response of the left-wing blogosphere [...]
Even the Times's readers don't seem interested in this story. When you look at their "most emailed" stories of the day, the McCain hit piece doesn't even crack the top ten.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
That's got to hurt!
“anonymous sources” = “I made it up”
The MSM will continue to publish lies and half truths attacking any Republican without consequence. They are preaching to the choir who continually repeat their lies even if they know better. Lying and cheating in politics is perfectly acceptable to liberals.
The NYT, as we know it today, must dry up and be driven out of business. I read that paper for more than 35 years during my commute into the city. Today, it’s fishwrap...run by a second rate family with a foolish, childish personal agenda. This piece on McCain ranks right up there with the one a couple of months ago that claimed Iraq and Afganistan vets were becoming crazed killers once they were back in civilian life. That story was debunked in less than 2 hours, showing that the homicide rate among those vets was one-fifth that of people in the same age bracket who had not served in harms way.
I’d settle for heads. The reporters and editors involved with this fiasco should be fired. In many ways this is worse than the Jayson Blair fraud.
An anonymous source tells me that Obama eats children and that Hillary Clinton strangles kittens in her spare time.
Go ahead, you can’t prove they didn’t.
I don’t think the DEMOCRATS even believed it!
Did the NY Slimes mention THIS
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
on Osama Obama? He has BIG problems.
LOL! Good one!
["Some non-ideological critics focused on the failure to prove the affair, or the favoritism. -- Keller says that misses the point -- "I think the story that emerged is actually bigger, and more important and maybe more subtle," he says. "There's not a big market for subtle these days but I think it's an important story."]
"This story is true....even though the evidence had to be manufactured"
I don’t think even the inmates at “The DU Asylum For The Terminally Naive And Stupid” believed it!
The old gray whore is infertile..... her ovaries are toast.
No need to question the Times' journalistic standards - they speak quite clearly for themselves.
>> The MSM will continue to publish lies and half truths attacking any Republican without consequence.
There’s been plenty of consequence but it’s a slow process. It is widely accepted that the MSM is a conglomeration of hack, left-leaning pseudo-journalists. Their market share has fallen dramatically over the years and none of their reporting is taken on face value; everything is suspect and everything is vetted on free media.
roflol!
The recent runup is because Harbinger Capital and Firebrand partners have accumulated a large positions and are campaigning to place a Director on the Board who favor doing away with family owned Class A voting and publicly traded Class B stock.
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.