Posted on 10/21/2012 7:49:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WHEN I wrote on my blog recently about The Times’s decision not to give front-page coverage to a Congressional hearing on the consulate attack in Libya, hundreds of e-mails and comments poured in.
The amount and vehemence of the reader response struck me as important.
I drew a couple of conclusions.
First, it is utterly wrong to say that The Times has ignored or buried the Libya story.
Second, to be more critical, the Libya coverage has not consistently and effectively helped readers make sense of what is happening. The Times has not effectively connected the dots in a murky, fast-moving and difficult-to-report story.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“murky, fast-moving and difficult-to-report story”
“It’s hard to keep our !@#$ straight when we’re constantly lying through our teeth. Plus that brown streak in the middle of our face clouds our vision from time to time.”
Pitiful
Fox/Bret Baier used a Sharpie to effectively connect the dots,only because they felt thats what journalists (not news readers and liberal rags)are supposed to do.
NY Times has a cabinet spot in the current regime and will never be able to connect squat.
Tom Friedman, on Meet the Press, said that thousands upon thousands of Libyans marched to protest the death of Ambassador Stevens. I have heard this over and over again by liberal journalists but cannot find any info on line about this. Did this happen or am I being lied to?
What this lady writer can’t come out and say is that the NYT started to bury the story once it became clear that Obummer and his minions lied about teh account. Sure, the times had the story front and center as it broke because there wasn’t any reason to believe that the admin was covering something up. But once the stench of cover up and lies wafted into the NYT news room, they went on protection mode for Obama and buried those stories.
The editors and writers of the NY slimes are as intellectually dishonest as they come.
Unfortunately this is nothing new for "the paper of record," going back at least as far as knowingly hiding Stalin's mass starvation of Ukrainians, and they still refuse to disavow the Pulitzer Prize won by Walter Durante for his lies.
Mark
What a preposterous claim from a publication that had the "fraternity hazing" at Abu Grave on the front page for over 40 straight days!
“Jill Abramson, The Times’s executive editor, and Dean Baquet, a managing editor, told me that the hearing did not break enough new ground to warrant the front page; they also said they were wary of its partisan politics.”
This from the fishwrap that splashed Abu Ghraib across it’s front page daily for, what was it, almost two months in a row?
The tall tales following the Ambassador’s murder were appalling; what is even more treacherous were the pre-attack failures of security and reality of the atmosphere in Libya.
Bodies in the desert and heads in the sand.
If the stories are true; that Valerie Jarrett vetoed the assault on Osama bin Laden -3 times - what are the odds that she refused to allow a military preventative strike against Stevens’ assassins?
Margaret Sullivan’s title is incorrect.
Rather than being the NYT’s Public Editor, she is the NYT’s Public Apologist.
Did all the Germans hate the Jews in the 1930s and 40s? I don’t think so. Then why was there so little interference from the German population when the Nazis started abusing and killing the Jews? I think it was because the Nazis were promising the German people a utopia. If some Jews were abused and killed, well, that was just a price to be paid for utopia in Germany. The Nazis were answering to the higher calling of creating a utopia. Where have I heard that phrase “higher calling” lately? Oh, yes, that’s how a journalist described Obama. He’s answering to “a higher calling”. This is where our media is. They know the Democrats lie and steal and have policies that cause hundreds of thousands to be killed, but it’s OK because our socialists want to create a utopia here in America. Unfortunately, you never get a utopia. You get millions of dead people. You get the “higher calling” of the death camp. You get the “higher calling” of the gulag. You get the “higher calling” of the Killing Fields. You get the “higher calling” of the abortion clinic. You get the “higher calling” of dead Americans in Benghazi. The millions of dead thank the press for looking the other way.
Hmmm, how many times was "Abu Ghraib" on the front page? They must have been wanting to build their own "truth".
keyboard spew alert
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.