Posted on 05/15/2003 3:48:51 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
The New York Times is spinning like crazy, over l'affair Jayson Blair. I just cannot believe how many conservatives, who ought to know better, are allowing themselves to be spun by the rootless cosmopolitans of the NYT and the rest of the liberal media. The young Jayson Blair is simply a little liar, who was well-trained by the big liars at the top ranks of that daily liepaper. Now that the little liar has been caught, the big, fat liars are trying to cover their fat, hairy, behinds, offering up the little liar - whom they trained in their tricks - as a sacrificial lamb.
I know for a fact that lying is routine in much of the mainstream media. I have an uncle who worked in Pat Buchanan's 1996 campaign, and he informed me, with convincing evidence, that the liberal media printed outright lies against Mr. Buchanan, and were not challenged for those lies. It was not simply a matter of taking Buchanan's past columns out of context - such as the filthy and shameless lie that Buchanan had praised Hitler - but there was a lying segment on Nightline, which made statements about the Buchanan family that were later proven to be 100% false.
Anyway, the liberal media is trying to make this a racial issue, as a way of throwing red meat at conservatives (who oppose quotas), as a way of distracting attention from the long record of lies spewed out by the Times even when it was staffed entirely by lily white liberals and communists. That is why the commies of the Times and their apologists are claiming that the Blair scandal is the low point in the newspapers 152 year history. The reason for making that statement, is to create the impression that before Jayson Blair joined the Times, the paper maintained high journalistic standards and integrity. Bullsh*t!
The lowest point in the 152 year history of the NYT (and in all of American journalism), was when New York Times reporter, Walter Duranty, visited Russia in the 1930s and covered up Josef Stalin's Holocaust against Ukrainian and Russian peasants. Estimates of deaths that Stalin caused in that genocide, range from 10 million to 20 million. Duranty portrayed Stalin's Russia as a workers' paradise, and Duranty won the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for his lies, a prize that the Times still brags about today.
Lying is routine for members of the elite liberal media. Conservatives will never get another chance like this, to fully expose the long record of outright lies that the filthy New York Times has engaged in for 70 years. It is time for conservatives to get busy, and go to their NYT archives in libraries and elsewhere, and dig out lies that the Times has been spreading over the past 70 years - heck, even the last 10 to 20 years will do. They should not allow themselves to be distracted by the "diversity angle" that the elite media is pushing. You should not allow the Times to get away with simply tossing an insignificant sacrificial lamb to the sharks. Besides corrections on Blair, NYT readers should expose inaccuracies by Dowd, Friedman, Safire, Miller Rosenthal, Clymer, and other writers. Pay attention to their so-called "anonymous sources".
As far as I am concerned, the NYT was garbage, long before Jayson Blair joined in 1998.
i.e., I could write an article for Jane's Defence Weekly and state that portions of my information come from, "an anonymous, high-placed source within the Pentagon." Even though I am unwilling or unable to cite my sources, others will know be able to cite Jane's as the source of their information.
I believe in protecting sources for legitimate and ethical reasons. The problem that arises is unethical writers can fabricate things and attribute them to an anonymous source for less than legitmate or ethical reasons; the "prestige," of the publication then puts it's imprimatur on the information.
Frankly, the New York Crimes should be at the top of its best fiction list every week.
Precisely. The little liar has been publicly spanked, while the big liars get their own columns and tv shows.
Anyone who has followed an important story in detail has not failed to notice how important details or even entire stories disappear, or get consigned to page 17, how articulate spokesmen for one point of view will be balanced by an inarticulate bufoon speaking for the other side, if any "balance" is offered at all.
Ridiculous charges will be made, and forgotten, again and again, with never a retraction, never any chance for rebuttal. And the mainstream press have had a monopoly until now. One reporter fibbing about his expense account is nothing. What do you do about an entire newspaper, or news channel, that has become poisoned by its political advocacy?
The Slimes started the Quagmire lies about the war in Iraq.
The Slimes has spiked and ignored the realities of the mass graves being unearthed in Iraq. They could care less if thousands and thousands of Iraqis were mass murdered.
As you point out the Slimes has at least 7 decades of documented lies.
7 DECADES OF LIES AND PROPGANDA! 
...that is a freppin' CLASSIC!
Thats right.
I have always been a news junkie, but it used to be so much harder. The first thing, you had to have a long memory. If you could remember what they printed 3 months ago, or two years ago on a subject, it made an interesting corrective to what they were telling you today. They would forget what they just told you yesterday, and that was good.
And you had to make it a point to read several sources. It doesn't work anymore, most newspapers are owned by the same companies, and get their stories from the same wire services, and share the same general editorial line, so reading several buys you nothing now. But at one time, there was an advantage to reading more than one newspaper.
I used to hang around the newsstands that sold foreign newspapers and magazines, and that helped a lot. And I would read stuff from the far right and the far left, each of which would include details that the mainstream press would leave out.
It was a lot of work, you had to do all your own filtering, but hey, I'm a geek, I love this stuff.
Its so much easier now. I have a short list of foreign newspapers I read on the internet, and there is Drudge for the headlines, and then Free Republic, where dozens or maybe hundreds of people are doing my digging for me. And if an article is bogus, you can count on someone to catch it, and refute it, with sources and links. Its incredible.
I haven't bought a newspaper - except to check the want ads - in a long time. Once in a while sitting in an airport I would pick up the New York Times to get the foreign news if nothing else is available, or just to see what their editorial page is saying today. But I long ago stopped caring what they thought, except as a matter of idle interest, or something to shoot at.
Matthews and others wrote long and adulatory "news" articles datelined from the Sierra Maestra Mountains which glorified Dr. Fidel and the Fidelistas as reformist democrats who only wanted to bring freedom and political independence to the suffering campesinos of Cuba.
Two weeks after Fidel entered Havana to the triumphant cheers of millions, the firing squads started and it has been downhill ever since.
The New York Times never apologised for their biased "news" coverage which had a great deal to do the survival of Castro's Movement and our withdrawl of politial support for Battista. Although Battista was a thuggish dictator who deserved to be overthrown, there were genuine democrats who were a part of the revolution who also ended up either shot or in exile in Miami, some later to surface in The Bay Of Pigs fisaco. But, the true reformers never had a chance in la Revolucion because by the time Castro took over, he had already been crowned The Wave Of The future by our elitists in the Media - who loved the guy - and our State Department which faithfully followed the Times disinformation.
There was plenty of evidence before Castro and his close followers took over that they were dedicated Communists. However, most of this information was "spiked" by Castro-friendly journalists like Herbert Matthews and The New York Times, who marched at the head of the parade of those touting Castro!
If the Democrats used (pro-liberal) quotes from papers like the Times, they could "say" something (for the Congressional record or for a television audience) without being held personally accountable.
If a paper said there was, for example, an alleged connection between a Republican and some evildoer, the Democrat could pretend to ask for "clarification" about the allegation, without seeming to bring up the allegation himself.
The Democrats' and Times' collaborative "one-two punch" has been substantially weakened.
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.