...the paper's managing editor, Bill Keller, struck back.
"At a time when serious journalism is being downsized and hollowed out - when most papers don't have a correspondent in all of Iraq,"We all know that reuters has only 7 non "Iraqi" journalists in all of Iraq.
So just who are these "journalists" that get their headlines splashed across every U.S. newspaper?
1 posted on
12/09/2006 5:48:51 PM PST by
mdittmar
To: mdittmar
My headline would be "Suckers Tired of Watching Their Investment in NYT Turn to Shit"
To: mdittmar
My headline: "Irrelevant Business Slowly Destroys Self"
3 posted on
12/09/2006 5:52:48 PM PST by
starbase
(Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
To: mdittmar
And as much as they may like to bash it, few really want to see the paper in the maw of voracious hedge fund managers. I agree. I want to see the The New York Times in a graveyard.
To: mdittmar
the paper struggles to adjust to the internet and achieve market value commensurate with its place as one the world's most influential newspapers. Try to understand this: it isn't "the internet" that is destroying the New York Times. It is the New York Times. And it is no longer one of the world's most influential newspapers. Not in an era when truth is readily available with a mouse click.
THAT is what the Times -- and so many of its fellow travelers -- is having trouble adjusting to.
5 posted on
12/09/2006 5:54:37 PM PST by
IronJack
(=)
To: mdittmar
I bought NYT recently so I could vote against the bstrds who run it.
Little did I know I could not vote.
The leftists who run it are in the cross hairs of many, however, for varying reasons.
Meanwhile, I'll collect some dividends and wait my turn.
6 posted on
12/09/2006 5:54:52 PM PST by
oldtimer
To: mdittmar
It's beautiful to watch as this "once stellar" toilet paper manufacturer dies a slow, maggot filled death.
7 posted on
12/09/2006 5:55:40 PM PST by
IllumiNaughtyByNature
(doot...doot...video killed the radio star...doot...doot...)
To: mdittmar
To: mdittmar
12 posted on
12/09/2006 6:22:43 PM PST by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: mdittmar
This reminds me of a smoker who is told they have lung cancer, but defiantly refuse to blame cigarettes or quit smoking.And I AM a smoker who knows better.
13 posted on
12/09/2006 6:27:49 PM PST by
Viking2002
(Islam is to Western Civilization what ticks are to a dog.)
To: mdittmar
"achieve market value commensurate with its place as one the world's most influential newspapers."
That's the problem. Sulzberger's actions are making it a less influential newspaper.
To: mdittmar
I hope the NYT continues its slide towards oblivion.
15 posted on
12/09/2006 6:53:51 PM PST by
SIDENET
(Everybody was kung-fu fighting)
To: mdittmar
Insiders like Pinch and Keller are the predators, sucking the life blood out of the NY Times, while the "little people" get laid off and underpaid.
16 posted on
12/09/2006 7:12:06 PM PST by
Doctor Raoul
(Why is the Viagra car in NASCAR a Ford and not a Stretch Limo?)
To: mdittmar
what i love about the hypocritical ochs/schulzburgers is that they insist that every OTHER institution should be run democratically, while they run their own propaganda empire as a family autocracy!!
i think they should have to give one tenth of the VOTING stock to each of the historically under-represented groups: e.g., palenstinian terrorists, african-anericans, southron good ol boys, army wives, long island republicans, and all the rest of us who have been excluded from their elitist, racist, and patriarchal empire.
we MUST speak truth to power !!!!
17 posted on
12/09/2006 7:48:05 PM PST by
drhogan
To: mdittmar
Time magazine headline, Sulzberger--Will He Listen?
18 posted on
12/09/2006 8:20:02 PM PST by
RedRover
(They are not killers. Defend our Marines.)
To: mdittmar
'The Sulzbergers have all the power and, much as one might like to mock Arthur Jr, and much as he may have made some stupid decisions, they're not going to let anyone else buy it.'Well, this is true. They'll just let him ruin it. Then, there won't be anything left to sell, and they'll all be penniless. Which suits me just fine.
To: mdittmar
20 posted on
12/09/2006 9:52:55 PM PST by
Rocky
(Air America: Robbing the poor, and still unable to stay in business)
To: mdittmar
21 posted on
12/09/2006 9:57:37 PM PST by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
To: mdittmar
Propaganda is boring!Truth is fascinating!
22 posted on
12/09/2006 10:18:23 PM PST by
Savage Beast
("Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly.")
To: mdittmar
"As things stand, no amount of stock could give Greenberg control of the firm as a second class of stock concentrates voting power in the hands of the family, descendants of Adolph S Ochs, who purchased the paper in 1896. It is a change the Sulzbergers continue to rule out. "chief executive Janet Robinson ... was pleased the Times had a dual class structure 'designed to protect these institutions in times of stress'."
What arrogant princes and princesses they all are! What elitist, ossified dinosaurs they are!
With their "ruling families" and "dual class structure" and "concentrating power in family hands" and "protecting these institutions", these people sound like the French aristocracy just before you-know-what happened. These liberals sound positively backward--by their own definition of the term.
I hope the Shareholder Gangs of New York eat them.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
