New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad, NY Times leans liberal ..? Options

[terrydactyl]

No, the fucking thread is about the partisan political bent of the NYTimes.

ya know
just because a paper exposes the impotency of a leader, party, or admin, doesnt mean its partisan
the nyt and wp both gave the bush admin a complete and utter pass to the buildup to the war, despite the bs it was based on

[woof.]

No, the fucking thread is about the partisan political bent of the NYTimes.

move on had to pay, judith miller was one of their own.

[smcd]

In this case, yes. If anything, the discussion should be about moveon.org's ad and not the fact that it ran in the first place for whatever price. It's another "shoot the messenger" scenario.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Squelch all dialogue except that approved by you.





One of the leading newspapers in the country not only runs a personal attack ad on the senior military commander in Iraq, but it does so on the day of his testimony before Congress, but gives the fringe group a huge discount on top of it??

THAT'S what I call news!


The NYTimes is an oft-referenced source for many politicians and pundits. When the credibility of the newspaper is politically tainted, I'd say that's a subject worthy of discussion!!

[mfk]

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Squelch all dialogue except that approved by you.
One of the leading newspapers in the country not only runs a personal attack ad on the senior military commander in Iraq, but it does so on the day of his testimony before Congress, but gives the fringe group a huge discount on top of it??

THAT'S what I call news!
The NYTimes is an oft-referenced source for many politicians and pundits. When the credibility of the newspaper is politically tainted, I'd say that's a subject worthy of discussion!!

fine. i'll leave you to your little circle jerk.

have fun

[smcd]

ya know
just because a paper exposes the impotency of a leader, party, or admin, doesnt mean its partisan
the nyt and wp both gave the bush admin a complete and utter pass to the buildup to the war, despite the bs it was based on

No! THE NYTIMES DIDN'T EXPOSE A GODDAMN THING!!


They ran a full page ad personally attacking the senior military commander in Iraq. There was no reporting involved. No investigation. Just money exchanged and unsubstantiated propaganda published.

[smcd]

fine. i'll leave you to your little circle jerk.

have fun

Translation: I haven't got a leg to stand on. Every sentence I type digs my rhetorical hole deeper.




.......AIPE AIPE AIPE!!!!

[Toady]

I think the real story here is that Democrats should be able to coast to a victory in '08 (if they can't, they're utterly hopeless) and they don't want to alienate anyone through the (arguably) shrill message of activist groups.

[MARSMAN]

ya know
just because a paper exposes the impotency of a leader, party, or admin, doesnt mean its partisan

Holy Christ !!!!

[smcd]

i said AD. The fucking AD was about iraq.

I said THREAD. The fucking THREAD is about the political partisanship of the NYTimes.

This post has been edited by smcd: Sep 24 2007, 10:50 AM

[MikeG]

I'll tell you what "deflection" is.
Deflection is making a post about the Iraq war in a thread about the NY Times and it's liberal bent.

That's deflection!

Also commonly known as the "ever changing argument".

[terrydactyl]

No! THE NYTIMES DIDN'T EXPOSE A GODDAMN THING!!
They ran a full page ad personally attacking the senior military commander in Iraq. There was no reporting involved. No investigation. Just money exchanged and unsubstantiated propaganda published.

i think theyre now running an ad for yoiur side today but i forget what it was for
the attack on patraeus, who everyone acknowledges was an outstanding commander, is because bush cowardly turned him into another admin mouthpiece and that the immediate gains from the surge itself means nothing because their is no iraqi political will and that it all becomes moot

[MARSMAN]

fine. i'll leave you to your little circle jerk.

have fun

Hey mfk before you go could you please answer the question I asked you twice in this thread that you ignored twice in this thread ..

Ya know the one ..just look back a little

[woof.]

No! THE NYTIMES DIDN'T EXPOSE A GODDAMN THING!!
They ran a full page ad personally attacking the senior military commander in Iraq. There was no reporting involved. No investigation. Just money exchanged and unsubstantiated propaganda published.

it's not like they tried to pass it off as news. it was obvious that it was an ad taken out by move-on. why would there be reporting or investigation? you think there's reporting or investigation if Monsanto takes out a full page ad?

seriously, your outrage is a bit misplaced.

[terrydactyl]

Holy Christ !!!!

give me an example then, mm
this paper is running a full length ad today for the right

[MARSMAN]

give me an example then, mm

Give you an example of what ?

I also think you are the last person to ask for an example ..you have ignored thoese questions on here for years ..

[smcd]

it's not like they tried to pass it off as news. it was obvious that it was an ad taken out by move-on. why would there be reporting or investigation? you think there's reporting or investigation if Monsanto takes out a full page ad?

seriously, your outrage is a bit misplaced.

The NYTimes doesn't think so.

The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature,'" he wrote, adding that the phrase "Betray Us" was "a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier." - New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt

[mfk]

Hey mfk before you go could you please answer the question I asked you twice in this thread that you ignored twice in this thread ..

Ya know the one ..just look back a little

sure.

First off, you're assuming that MoveOn.org represents the "american left". They do not. Are they lefties, sure? Are they mainstream lefties, absolutely not.

And yes, i will give you that by giving them a cut rate, the appearance of favoritism is given. That is bad.

I still will not concede that outside of their editorial, their NEWS is slanted left. I read the Times fairly regularly and am pretty impressed that they manage to give both sides of an issue space. Even when one side is pretty obviously wrong.

There. That work for you?

[MARSMAN]

it's not like they tried to pass it off as news. it was obvious that it was an ad taken out by move-on. why would there be reporting or investigation? you think there's reporting or investigation if Monsanto takes out a full page ad?

seriously, your outrage is a bit misplaced.

They broke their OWN POLICY for printing attacks ads ..

Why did they do that ..?

[terrydactyl]

Give you an example of what ?

I also think you are the last person to ask for an example ..you have ignored thoese questions on here for years ..

of how cbs.nbc/abc and the nyt and wp are leftist just cuz they report bad news

[mfk]

They broke their OWN POLICY for printing attacks ads ..

Why did they do that ..?

Money.

[MARSMAN]

sure.

First off, you're assuming that MoveOn.org represents the "american left". They do not. Are they lefties, sure? Are they mainstream lefties, absolutely not.

And yes, i will give you that by giving them a cut rate, the appearance of favoritism is given. That is bad.

I still will not concede that outside of their editorial, their NEWS is slanted left. I read the Times fairly regularly and am pretty impressed that they manage to give both sides of an issue space. Even when one side is pretty obviously wrong.

There. That work for you?

Yes ..

[MARSMAN]

Money.

[woof.]

The NYTimes doesn't think so.

The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature,'" he wrote, adding that the phrase "Betray Us" was "a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier." - New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt

oh...NOW I'M ANGRY!!!!!

as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't whack a dog in the ass with the NYT...why anyone would put any stock in that shit rag after the judith miller fiasco is beyond me...but I'm zany like that.

hmmm...move on sure got a lot of mileage with that 65K.

[mfk]

oh and there's a full page personal attack ad in today's NY times. Of course, it's paid for by a right wing WhiteHouse front group and it's against the president of Iran, so i guess that's ok.

[terrydactyl]

oh and there's a full page personal attack ad in today's NY times. Of course, it's paid for by a right wing WhiteHouse front group and it's against the president of Iran, so i guess that's ok.

isnt it against columbia u too?