Posted on 03/26/2011 10:58:44 AM PDT by rhema
After the horrific shooting spree, the editorial board of the New York Times offered a voice of reasoned circumspection: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions...," the paper counseled.
Here's how the sentence continued: "...from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East." That was in November 2009. The Times responded in precisely the opposite fashion to the Tucson Safeway massacre 14 months later. What was once known as the paper of record egged on its readers to draw invidious conclusions that were not only prejudicial but contrary to known fact. In doing so, the Times crossed a moral line and revealed itself to be a fundamentally corrupt institution.
On Saturday, January 8, a gunman shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head at close range, gravely wounding the Arizona Democrat. He then opened fire on the crowd that had gathered for a "Congress on Your Corner" meet-and-greet, killing six, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl.
By Monday, when the Times weighed in with an editorial, it was clear that suspect Jared Loughner was mentally ill and had no comprehensible political motive. The paper nonetheless seized on the crime as an occasion for partisan attack:
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The NYT a liberal publication?
Who knew?
“important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions...,”
Right.
I get sick of reading almost daily now of the leftist bias in the media. But at least people are hearing about it.
when out of toilet paper, I used to wipe my a$$ with the NY Times, but I had to stop when my a$$ started to complain.
I just love my tagline, don’t you? And it rhymes, too.
James Taranto’s analysis of the New York Times heavily biased initial coverage of the ‘Tuscon massacre’ where mentally unstable Jared Loughner allegedly killed six people and severely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, among others is excellent and well worth reading. He not only skewers the New York Times for it’s anti-conservative bias and blatant misrepresentation of the facts but demonstrates why the newspaper has sunk to this level and why it is now, in effect, circling the drain.
Agreed...very good tagline!!!
I have always enjoyed James Taranto’s work. Good reference...
How a once great newspaper overdosed?
I don’t think so.
The New York Times has been having its way with us for over a century.
It has never been great for honest folk.
“Be careful out there amongst those english Book”.
There it is in plain words! Now, will the Am-Spec repeat such inclusively with each mention of that fish wrap. Ahem, allow me to illustrate:
The New York Times, a fundamentally corrupt institution, reported today...
Your tagline is good too. I had one that was similar:
The greatest deterrent to Liberalism is sunlight.
Although I’m a non drinker I will seriously consider raising a glass the day this odious house organ of the DNC dies a long overdue death.
LOL! Like roaches...:)
“Although I’m a non drinker I will seriously consider raising a glass the day this odious house organ of the DNC dies a long overdue death.”
New York Times stock value has declined 80% in the last ten years - and was down 90% during the Great Recession.
I disagree that the NYT is the “odious house organ of the DNC.”
I think the DNC is the “odious political wing” of the New York Times.
Steve McCann
The New York Times Company has just issued its 4th quarter financial results. Their long term trend of slowly sinking into the sunset continues. Total revenues fell 2.9% from the same period a year ago. Net Income fell 29% and earnings per share fell from $.63 to $.45. The long term trend shows no real improvement as advertising revenues continue to decline.
Since February 3, 2004 when the New York Times Company closed on the New York Stock Exchange at $45.69 a share, it has steadily eroded to the point where the latestquote as of today is $10.56 (a decline of 77%). By contrast the Dow Jones Industrial Average during this same period has gone from 10,409 to 12,037 today (an increase of 16%).
The Company continues to scramble to sell assets and find new sources of borrowings in order to keep afloat. However, there seem to be few questions asked as to why the loss of readership which impacts advertisers. Over the period 2004 to 2010 the average daily circulation has dropped from 1,124,700 to 877,000 an overall decline of 22%. Certainly it could not be due their one sided and overwhelmingly left-wing approach to the news and not so subtle cheerleading for the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party which has driven many to seek comparatively unbiased news sources elsewhere such as the internet, Fox News and a few still objective newspapers.
That factor will never be acknowledged as the New Times editorial board and staff consider themselves the epitome and voice of the current Ruling Class. They will go down with the ship as they are above succumbing to the rabble outside their palace doors.
“A Week in the Death of the New York Times”
And a bit closer to a government bailout.
IMHO
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.