Posted on 09/09/2009 3:37:24 PM PDT by Nachum
A top editor at the New York Times this week owned up to the paper’s lack of coverage of the controversy surrounding former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones. Rather than leaving it there, however, the editor noted the paper’s minimal online coverage, insisted that the Washington bureau was short-staffed, and suggested that Jones and his contentious positions really were not important enough to cover at length.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Perhaps it wasn’t “fit to print.”
Meanwhile they cover Michelle’s upper arm workout.
If the starvation of millions of kulaks in the USSR wasn’t fit to print then surely news regarding CommieCzar Jones wasn’t fit to print either.
O’Reilly gave her the talking points. As he told the incredulous Beck: Jones was a smallfry, not worthy of my radar screen.
The same paper that covered up the millions killed in the Ukraine famine in the 30’s....so covering for Commies nothing new for the NYT
But seriously, I suspect BOR is just putting on a show for FNC viewers by pooh-poohing Beck's work on Van Jones as an exercise in tongue-in-cheek macho rivalry in order to ramp up both men's ratings.
That's usually how TV works: they're always looking for a 'narrative' to hook more viewers. But since I don't watch either show, I couldn't say for sure. ;-)
I guess I can see that logic.
Hard to imagine at one time this paper made or broke any politician of the day.
Now it barely ranks above bird cage lining
They seemed to find someone to cover Scooter Libby for his crime of the century. What hypocrites.
Pray for the Tea Party Express
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysSSmvMBEc
the New York Times (Pinch) on Suicide Watch (above link)....HAHAHAHA
I guess Jacko’s funeral took precedence...or maybe Jessica Simpson’s new hairstyle...
Did she have a straight face when she said this? We're people in the room winking and nodding and rolling on the floor laughing?
I know what conservatives were doing... we were rolling our eyes... and stunned they would offer something so transparently untrue.
If Bush had appointed a known NAZI who called dems assh-les, and thought liberals "deserved" to die in terrorists attacks... I think the New York Times would have been on that story like white on rice.
Long story short - I don't believe them. I believe the New York Times is lying to us or lying to themselves or both.
Can they win a Pulitzer for NOT covering a story? Maybe that should be a new category for the liberal "prize"....
abb, you might want to ping your list to this one...
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.