The New York Times Declares War On America

Toogood Reports ^ | January 30, 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

That our alleged allies have rescinded their support is reason not to question our aims, but theirs. The nations that seek to sandbag America do so variously out of cowardice, a genuine desire to harm the U.S., and a determination that their interests are fundamentally at odds with ours. There are many things that one may call such nations – cowards, enemies, rivals – but "allies" is not one of them. The Times' response has been to take our opponents' side.

Similarly, the people who run the New York Times seek to sandbag America variously out of cowardice, a genuine desire to harm the U.S., and a determination that their interests are fundamentally at odds with ours. There are many things that one may call such people, but "patriots" is not one of them.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

[geedee]

The sad thing is I saw something yesterday or the day before that said their profits were up 45%. I find that baffling as hell.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

It must drive the NY Times crazy that President Bush is doing so well amongst the people!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[wayoverontheright]

I just don't understand why the market hasn't dealt with the NYT already. Their slant was liberal before Howell Raines. The most marketable "slant" is the conservative one, as evidenced by the trememdous growth of right wing talk radio, right wing web sites, Fox News, etc.

In DC I'm detecting that the Post is, albeit begrudgingly, inching toward the right, probably due to competition from the growing Washington Times. Why is the New York Times apparently able to escape the effects of the same market forces?

[jpl]

I do not subscribe to any newspaper. They, as the TV news, are all owned by the American hating Dems.

There are actually a (very) tiny handful of good newspapers that aren't owned by extreme leftists. The highest quality and most balanced paper in America is probably the Wall Street Journal (which is not right-wing as the socialists like to claim, but centrist). The best two after that are probably the Washington Times and the Manchester Union-Leader. And of course the TV exception is good old Fox News Channel.

[johnb838]

The Old Gay Lady

[desertcry]

9.11.01 was not enough for the nyt. They want total destruction of NYC.

[mrustow]

My pleasure.

[mrustow]

Sure thing, A-G!

[okie01]

"Why is the New York Times apparently able to escape the effects of the same market forces?"

While the circulation of most major market newspapers is declining steadily, the New York Times is only inching downward.

To some degree, I believe their pronounced leftist editorial direction might be responsible for this. The Times is becoming THE newspaper of choice for liberals everywhere -- not just in New York.

From a marketing standpoint, it's good business. It shows they know who their market is and they have clearly embarked on a mission to serve it. From a journalistic standpoint, it's something less. But since when have professional ethics interfered with a leftists' agenda?

[mrustow]

The sad thing is I saw something yesterday or the day before that said their profits were up 45%. I find that baffling as hell.

So do I. Most media companies are in trouble, and most big-city American dailies have been bleeding red ink for years. Local TV news makes huge profits off advertising, but that's another story entirely, since the people who don't read papers watch TV news.

And the Times wildly overpaid a few years ago, when it bought the Boston Globe for $1 billion.

Granted, the Times has expanded via increasing out-of-NYC readership, and its web site has so many readers, that it may be profitable. May be. But the NYT is a hugely expensive operation. If the company is so profitable, it has to be from other holdings.

[mrustow]

The weekly edition of the Washington Times is worth reading!

So it is, but it is not available everywhere.

[mrustow]

9.11.01 was not enough for the nyt. They want total destruction of NYC.

Excepting their presnt HQ on West 43rd Street, and their future HQ, whose street I can't recall.

[mrustow]

Thanks for the link!

[mrustow]

More people will read your posts, if you do not improperly capitalize all letters. In emphasizing everything, you emphasize nothing.

[alrea]

the Times has expanded via increasing out-of-NYC readership

this paper is being read all over. you can always find several copies in coffee shops around colleges in this area and often there are no local papers. it's also popular for it's art sections.

[mrustow]

What area is that?

[desertcry]

Excepting their present HQ...... Of course, liberals want to feel and see your pain, but never their own.

[lawgirl]

I used to buy the NY Times every Sunday,just for the magazine,style and travel sections. No more. Screw 'em.

Just make sure you TELL them that! Write them and call them and let them know exactly why you are doing this.