Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Jun 29, 2006.
If you are in NY:
Links at site:
Sorry...but no. Question authority.
'The paper of record...' That IS authority, Bully.
The Bush Administration supposedly outed (which they didn't) a covert agent (which she wasn't, she had a deskbound position at the CIA). The left screams for an investigation, it turns up nothing and the left still claims... you guessed it.... that the Bush Administration outed a covert agent.
Now, the NYT, publishes classified information for everyone to see, including Al Queda, and the left claims that it's freedom of the press.
There is a logical disconnect here.
That is, if you take the issue for what appears to be, which it isn't.
The truth of the matter is, to the left, Bush can do no right, and the NYT can do no wrong. It's as plain and simple as that.
And, to make a further point, the members of the left are so indoctrinated to their way of thinking (which is not logical) they can't see the truth even when it's obvious.
The NYT took Joe Wilson at his word, they didn't bother to investigate the story (which is what journalists are supposed to do). Rather, they just ran with the story.
Same thing with the latest, the NYT received information, and didn't bother to check. If they had, they would have at least had a chance of finding out that the information was classified.
I should mention the Memogate scandal at CBS. Rather than investigate the story, they chose to believe allegations from a person with a history of mental instability, who went into seizures and collapsed during an interview.
The problem is very obvious. We have a culture of complacency and corruption in the media. They've become so accustomed to telling the public anything and getting away with it that they've forgotten the basics. Investigate the story before you run with it, that's Journalism 101 stuff.
Big difference between questioning authority and revealing potentially harmful information. There's also a big difference between questioning authority with a legitimate concern than disregarding the potential harm revealing information can have for the purpose of partisan hackery and sensationalism.
I consider the NYT about as legit as the National Enquirer at this point.
Questioning authority for the sake of it is stupid if the answer is obvious.
Here is a good example of The New York Times and how their reporters don't do any real research of their own but just spout the liberal party line:
And a follow up:
John Kerry has told so many different versions of his exploits in Vietnam that it's really hard to believe how any interviewer could take anything he says at face value. It does NOT explain how a reporter from The New York Times could possibly not be prepared to confront him with all of these different stories, and ask him to explain why he has told so many different versions. But they don't treat Kerry like a good, non-partisian reporter should treat any public figure.
It's not just the New York Times, either. All MSM media treated Kerry the same way during the last election. They all regurgitate each others stories, and that's partly to blame. But look at the time, money, and resources that was spent analyzing Bush's every move since diapers compared to Kerry's past.
<blockquote>On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to "government officials." And on July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official," Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer." - <a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html>John Dean, 08/15/2003</a></blockquote>
If you go to <a href=http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/28/0,2340,en_32250379_32236930_33658140_1_1_1_1,00.html>Financial Action Task Force</a> website, actions to track and block terrorists finances were really not such a secret after all.
And what, praytell, might that be?
Actually the Timed can do, and has done, wrong especially in its unquestioning support for the Administration's talking points in the run up to the war in Iraq.
Have you ever seriously examined YOUR way of thinking...? I thought not.
Why don't you get the story from the source? On July 16th, 2004, Joe wilson submitted <a href=http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index_np.html>his statement</a> on the matter to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller.
The corruption and complacency issue cuts both ways but, for the most part, not the way you think. With the ownership of the media, including news organizations, being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the bias of the corporate owners will make itself apparent in the news coverage. And the corporate owners are largely supporters of the administration.
The NYT`s does not care what the American people think of their disloyal treasonous actions. We are not important to them. What they are concerned with are the opinions and the judgment of those in their closely knit society, you know, their sub-culture.
They appear to have no fear of Americas Islamic enemy. The NYT`s thinks that the jihadists will accept them as their brothers and sisters in their fight against a racist America. After all, they have announced to our enemy how our American policies have created these jihadist warriors for Islam. (You know, those low-life insects you want to crush under your feet.)
The truth is, they live in a world of fantasy, a dark fantasy. Political agitation is their most exciting form of entertainment. Having more than most Americans, they feel the need to push the political envelope in a way that will destroy America.
Yes, the NYT`s considers itself to be clever and interesting. Such fools.
Separate names with a comma.