New York Times runs anti-Catholic smear ad, rejects ad that tells truth about Islam

[Warrior102]

No one reads it anyway. It's like the MSNBC of print.
So who cares. As a Catholic, I could really give a rat's ass.

 

[Jroc]

I wouldn't line my bird cage with the New York Times; all they are now is a propaganda and paper. They practically ignored the Holocaust, if that paper had focused more on what the Germans were doing maybe more Jews and others could have been saved. That paper is a piece of shit and their owners are shit

THE NEW YORK TIMES And the Holocaust

By NYO Staff 5/23/05 1It’s always interesting when a powerful institution takes a public look at itself. Last Sunday, The New York Times published a review of Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper, a book by journalist Laurel Leff, which details how The Times skirted the issue of the Holocaust during the early 1940′s, even as it was becoming more and more known that the Nazis were singling out Jews for mass murder. While The Times’ shameful delinquency on this front has been known and acknowledged by those within and outside the paper, the review is defensive in tone and works hard to discredit Ms. Leff’s point of view.

While the events of 60 years ago in no way implicate the current generation of Times owners and editors, the Holocaust wasn’t a proud moment in the newspaper’s history, and it’s shocking to consider, when other tragedies received careful analysis and reporting, how far off The Times’ radar screen the Holocaust remained. The publisher at the time, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and his family were members of the “our crowd” German Jews in this country, and they didn’t want to alienate the powers that be in government and business. So questions of Jewish identity were often diluted in the paper’s pages, lest the Sulzbergers be seen as being on the “pro-Jewish” side. A conscious decision was made from the top to downplay stories which might give the impression that The Times was a “Jewish newspaper.” The editorial page mostly avoided mentioning Jews as specific victims of Nazi horrors; as reported in The Trust, a book by Susan Tifft and Alex Jones on The Times, the paper referred to those involved in the Warsaw ghetto uprising as “the Poles” and “Warsaw patriots.” Other examples: Stories in 1943 about the massacre of Jews in Italy and Austria didn’t make it on to page 1. The following summer, The Times reported that 400,000 Hungarian Jews had already been sent to their deaths and 350,000 more were about to follow them-but the story was hidden, given only four column inches on page 12. Sulzberger was also very much against the Zionist movement and opposed the creation of the state of Israel

THE NEW YORK TIMES And the Holocaust | The New York Observer

Yeah.

It's all the Times' fault that the holocaust took place. Right.

You are such a shill.

Nope just shows how the New York Times is anything but a real News Paper. News is news genocide should be on the front page. People being herded into gas chambers women and children is front page news not some back page after thought

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did someone actually try to buy the racist anti-Islam ad, or is this a bunch of phony outrage?

You do understand there is a difference between having a valid complaint with the leaders of a sect and having a complaint with an entire religion, right?

That was funny.

How is attacking someone's beliefs racist? Are they calling on people to change the color of their skin?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

YOu keep telling yourself it isn't about race for you guys.

I doubt any of you jokers are scholars on the Islamic religion.

My guess is I know more about Islam than you. I actually own a Qur'an, and have read it. Have you ever read the Qur'an?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder where the outrage was when the New York Times ran an ad from an Evangelical group that urged Jewish people to convert.

Oh yeah..Jewish people were offended. Conservatives? Not so much.

Ad Targeting Jews For Conversion 'Offensive And Insulting'

Did someone here complain because the NYT ran an ad? I wonder why you think that not running an ad is in any way the same as not running one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder where the outrage was when the New York Times ran an ad from an Evangelical group that urged Jewish people to convert.

Oh yeah..Jewish people were offended. Conservatives? Not so much.

Ad Targeting Jews For Conversion 'Offensive And Insulting'

****************************************************
The two ads are similar; perhaps the reason the second ad was rejected? Both writings are on the same type of paper also.

Amazing how people keep making up reasons for the NYT to reject the ad. Could it be because, deep down, they agree that it is wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems like only yesterday Limbaugh was being praised for allegedly rejecting one of his advertisers.

How does that compares to this situation?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Did someone actually try to buy the racist anti-Islam ad, or is this a bunch of phony outrage?

You do understand there is a difference between having a valid complaint with the leaders of a sect and having a complaint with an entire religion, right?

Yes, someone tried to buy the add, same amout of money 36 grand and they refused. The NY Times is now citing the troops as the reason they refused to run the ads.