Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Bird
The New Republic is too old an institution to recklessly advocate for the wrong side of history.

Just as importantly, they seem to know it. The current people in place are but the custodians of a reputation that took a long time to build, and that will have value long after they are gone.

I do not understand why the owners of the just-as-venerable New York Times have chosen to trade their institution's incredible reputation and power for a few ineffectual spears thrown at one Republican President. Such short-term thinking boggles the mind.


13 posted on 02/04/2003 4:35:56 PM PST by Nick Danger (Heave la France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Nick Danger
I do not understand why the owners of the just-as-venerable New York Times have chosen to trade their institution's incredible reputation and power for a few ineffectual spears thrown at one Republican President. Such short-term thinking boggles the mind.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of the Times, spends his time on other matters.

For example, the parent company website lists among its company awards, The New York Times Company has been selected by the Gay Financial Network for their 2001 gfn.com 500 - their annual listing of the most powerful and gay-friendly companies within the Fortune 500.

Supposedly the gay agenda occupies a lot of their time, and their editorial writers are expected to toe that line above all others.

If your main editorial criterion has to do with a certain sexual orientation, it's not surprising that you'd end up with inconsistencies elsewhere.

37 posted on 02/05/2003 12:36:01 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson