Protesting The NY Times

[Annie]

If you are in NY:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005466.htm

Links at site:

PROTEST THE NEW YORK TIMES
By Michelle Malkin · June 29, 2006 11:39 PM

I mentioned the other day that I'd been hearing buzz about a protest at the New York Times building.

It's coming together and there are details posted now at FR.

Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets, Monday, July 10, 5 p.m.

We have a sound permit, and we will be across the street from the New York Times. They are at 229 West 43rd Street.

The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus for America, the Congress for Racial Equality, and Protest Warrior, NYC Chapter. We have reached out to several other groups as well, and are waiting to hear back from them.

Some high-visibility media people are interested in speaking at the protest. More information will be coming on this as we gather groups and speakers.

So hold the date! If you have been as sick about the Times's unconscionable blabbing of our classified information as the rest of those who care about the nation, now is your chance to do something to make your outrage heard.​

Mark the date on your calendar now.

Looking for sign and banner ideas? How about printing up some of the best anti-blabbermouth posters from the Army of Photoshoppers?

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><img src=http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/silence.jpg></center>

Sorry...but no. Question authority.

 

[Annie]

<center><img src=http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/silence.jpg></center>

Sorry...but no. Question authority.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

'The paper of record...' That IS authority, Bully.

 

[KarlMarx]

It's incredible.

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.

 

[Gunny]

<center><img src=http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/silence.jpg></center>

Sorry...but no. Question authority.

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.

 

[nt250]

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:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_truth_john_kerry_and_the_n.html

June 05, 2006
The Truth, John Kerry, and The New York Times
By Thomas Lipscomb

Kate Zernike's story on the front page of the Memorial Day Sunday New York Times, "Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss," is an unfortunate reminder of the Times's embarrassingly poor coverage of Kerry in the face of the Swift Boat Veterans' for Truth charges in the 2004 election. Now as then, the Times acts as if the issues involved were between Kerry's latest representations of his record and the "unsubstantiated" charges of the Swift Boat group. The Times used the term "unsubstantiated" more than twenty times during its election coverage and continues to make no discernable effort to examine any of the charges in detail.

That will certainly come as a surprise to anyone reading this story which lays down a lot of unproven statements as fact, unproven and unconfirmed by Kate Zernike, such as: "Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves." Please note this is not a statement of position from a Kerry advocate being quoted. This is a flat statement of fact by Zernike on behalf of "the newspaper of record."

And a follow up:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/john_kerrys_skimmer_scam.html


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.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's incredible.

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.

<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>

Now, the NYT, publishes classified information for everyone to see, including Al Queda, and the left claims that it's freedom of the press.

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.

There is a logical disconnect here.

Yes, yours.

That is, if you take the issue for what appears to be, which it isn't.

And what, praytell, might that be?

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.

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.

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.

Have you ever seriously examined YOUR way of thinking...? I thought not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[F41]

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 America’s 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.