Another reason why the NYT is a disgrace

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:




:up:

these very lines are posted in *every* cubicle in FoxNews HQ.

right along with the Citibank terrorist threat that magically happened the day after Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate.

(and, praytell, what are the other reasons why the NYT -- widely considered the finest newspaper on earth -- is a disgrace?)
Writing a lengthy justification for not publishing the Mohammed cartoons while having in the past published images of art that desecrate Christian iconography does suffice, the double standard is a disgrace.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Writing a lengthy justification for not publishing the Mohammed cartoons while having in the past published images of art that desecrate Christian iconography does suffice, the double standard is a disgrace.



so you've given me one reason.

where's the other?

it does seem, in this case, the term "disgrace" does not apply. in fact, "disgrace" is a rather strong term.
 
Well it does seem a bit bizarre that a major paper based in NY would "bury" such a story, no matter how imminent or potentially tragic it really was. It would have been an attack on a huge scale if it had been successful. It wasn't just FOX that played it up, it was all over CNN and MSNBC too (of course it makes for a better TV story than it does a newspaper story). Maybe the NY Times operates by journalistic standards that also exist outside its' political bent-you'd have to be privy to their private meetings to know exactly why they made that particular decision. How exactly do we define when evil intent transforms successfully into operational capability? How was it defined on 9/11/01? It wasn't.
 
Let's see where they put the William Jefferson story tomorrow. A 16 count indictment, complete with the 90 grand in his office freezer. I bet the NYT makes at least some mention of it on the front page, maybe bottom of the fold. They should.
 
did we all think the NYT was "disgraceful" when they spent months putting Judy Miller/Ahmed Chalabi stories on the front page about the erstwhile "search" for Hussein's WMDs?
 
Irvine511 said:
did we all think the NYT was "disgraceful" when they spent months putting Judy Miller/Ahmed Chalabi stories on the front page about the erstwhile "search" for Hussein's WMDs?

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about this story.

This should not be a Republican/Democrat or a pro-war/anti-war debate. This is about a New York-based paper putting a New York-based story on page 37. The NYT is trying to downplay the war on terror. They want a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and will do whatever they can to make sure it happens. That includes burying a thwarted terror-plot, which I believe helps Republicans.
 
You say this:

2861U2 said:


This should not be a Republican/Democrat or a pro-war/anti-war debate.

But then you make it into one right after that:

2861U2 said:

The NYT is trying to downplay the war on terror. They want a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and will do whatever they can to make sure it happens. That includes burying a thwarted terror-plot, which I believe helps Republicans.

This thread's a joke.:|
 
Bluer White said:
Let's see where they put the William Jefferson story tomorrow. A 16 count indictment, complete with the 90 grand in his office freezer. I bet the NYT makes at least some mention of it on the front page, maybe bottom of the fold. They should.



i'm not sure what sort of litmus test a financial scandal involving a black congressman is supposed to be, but it is the top story on Anderson Cooper.
 
2861U2 said:
This should not be a Republican/Democrat or a pro-war/anti-war debate. This is about a New York-based paper putting a New York-based story on page 37. The NYT is trying to downplay the war on terror. They want a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and will do whatever they can to make sure it happens. That includes burying a thwarted terror-plot, which I believe helps Republicans.



well, if you look at the polls, the GWOT doesn't help the Republicans.

and it also seems as if the NYT -- being in New York -- knew ahead of everyone else that the alleged plot was well overhyped to begin with.

but go ahead and continue with the conspiracy theories. it's about all the Republicans have left.
 
Irvine511 said:




well, if you look at the polls, the GWOT doesn't help the Republicans.

and it also seems as if the NYT -- being in New York -- knew ahead of everyone else that the alleged plot was well overhyped to begin with.

but go ahead and continue with the conspiracy theories. it's about all the Republicans have left.


Ding, ding, ding we have a winner!
 
I'm not sure what universe some people live on, where any one media source is their sole media source. You probably cannot name one NYT reader who wasn't aware of this thwarted terrorist plot from other news sources, whether it be from the headlines of the other NY newspapers or from the myriad of internet and television news sources that made people aware of it.

Frankly, the NYT made an editorial decision that it wasn't important enough to be on the front page. Perhaps they preferred not to regurgitate the same headline that every other newspaper in the area was most certainly going to have.

Additionally, I believe that the NYT markets their Sunday paper, in particular, as meaning to appeal to a more cultured and high brow audience, so the fact that they chose to make their headline that day about poverty in India may have more to do with their unique marketing and audience concerns than any FOX News wet dream about a sinister anarcho-leftist conspiracy at the NYT.
 
Irvine511 said:




i'm not sure what sort of litmus test a financial scandal involving a black congressman is supposed to be,

If he was a Republican, like Duke Cunningham, it would be all we would hear about until the next election.


sometimes you gotta help em move the ball
 
Irvine511 said:
i'm not sure what sort of litmus test a financial scandal involving a black congressman is supposed to be, but it is the top story on Anderson Cooper.

I'm not aware of a litmus test for reporting on the "Culture of Corruption"....black, white, Dem, or Rep. It certainly was a rallying cry in the midterm elections, and a Pelosi initiative to clean things up.

Rogue politicians should be made famous by the media. All of them.
 
In recent times we have seen that sensationalism drives most news stories, maybe the NYT's have decided to not play the same old game, i.e. report the story before the facts.
Putting a major story (without facts) on a page other that the first page.. well thats just scandalous.
We've all seen where falling into beliving news articles without facts have gotten us.
 
Ormus said:

Additionally, I believe that the NYT markets their Sunday paper, in particular, as meaning to appeal to a more cultured and high brow audience, so the fact that they chose to make their headline that day about poverty in India may have more to do with their unique marketing and audience concerns than any FOX News wet dream about a sinister anarcho-leftist conspiracy at the NYT.

I think that's probably true.
 
well, it was the lead story on every new york city news station and on the front cover of every other new york newspaper sunday morning... so to those who care, which i don't, it certainly, at the very least, gives fuel to the whole new york times is a lefty rag thing when the #1 story on ever other form of media in new york city is on page 30...

that said, the times did probably get it right... the odds of someone being able to pull off an attack like this were/are very low, and even if this was in the "operational" stages, it likely wouldn't have done much if anything more than a nuisance.

hardly "disgraceful"

bloomberg put it best...

"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life,"
 
Last edited:
Bluer White said:

I'm not aware of a litmus test for reporting on the "Culture of Corruption"....black, white, Dem, or Rep. It certainly was a rallying cry in the midterm elections, and a Pelosi initiative to clean things up.



it's the #2 story in the "Washington" section of the website. seems about right.

can you explain to me the persistent need to paint the NYT and NPR as somehow equivalent to FoxNews and the Washington Times?
 
Irvine511 said:




so you've given me one reason.

where's the other?

it does seem, in this case, the term "disgrace" does not apply. in fact, "disgrace" is a rather strong term.

1) The Times refrained from showing the Danish cartoons that set off violence in much of the world because (in a Feb 7, 2006 editorial) "That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols" yet the next day -- THE NEXT DAY -- ran a picture of Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, a "work of art" that shows the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and clumps of elephant dung.

Guess it's OK to offend Christians.

2) Eric Lichtblau and James Risen disclose details about the NSA surveillance program. Some nice FYM threads about this already but it's comforting to know that the Times puts winning Pulitzers before national security isn't it?

3) Even though no laws were broken, last year the Times runs a long story exposing a secret government program to track the international bank transfers of terror suspects.

Reporter Eric Lichtblau explains the whole story was "common knowledge." Well it is now.

4) If for no other reason, #2 and #3 fit the liberal/NYT template that says "Bush is the real threat" in the "so called War on Terror."
Which is why (as detailed in Bernard Goldman's new book Crazies To The Left Of Me, Wimps To The Right), the New York Times put Abu Ghraib on the front page FOR THIRTY-TWO CONSECUTIVE DAYS. 32, as in one straight month. Including Sundays Ormus!!

Why does Abu Ghraib make the front page for 32 straight days while a story about a foiled plot to blowup one of the world's busiest airports in the Times own backyard gets buried in it's paper?
Why? Because the New York Times is far more concerned with embarrassing George Bush and electing a Democrat in 2008 -- far more interested in reporting the misdeeds of Americans -- far too worried about offending Muslims -- to honestly, honestly, report about what's going on around our world today.

Read it at your own risk.
 
INDY500 said:

Why does Abu Ghraib make the front page for 32 straight days while a story about a foiled plot to blowup one of the world's busiest airports in the Times own backyard gets buried in it's paper?


gee, could it be that this destroyed any and all American credibility in Iraq? that we'd become that which we had hoped to remove from Iraq?

but we don't need to get into the catastrophe of AG. it doesn't belong in the same league of an overhyped -- as has now been demonstrated -- unrealistic plot against JFK that the NYT probably knew more about than any other paper.




Why? Because the New York Times is far more concerned with embarrassing George Bush and electing a Democrat in 2008 -- far more interested in reporting the misdeeds of Americans -- far too worried about offending Muslims -- to honestly, honestly, report about what's going on around our world today.

Read it at your own risk.


and i understand why you need to continue to think this.
 
INDY500 said:


1) The Times refrained from showing the Danish cartoons that set off violence in much of the world because (in a Feb 7, 2006 editorial) "That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols" yet the next day -- THE NEXT DAY -- ran a picture of Chris Ofili's Holy Virgin Mary, a "work of art" that shows the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and clumps of elephant dung.

Guess it's OK to offend Christians.


Interesting read, context is everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/arts/design/08imag.html?ex=1181188800&en=62231fb76cf5067f&ei=5070
 
INDY500 said:


Yep, there's the Virgin Mary picture...dung and all. Still no Danish cartoons.

Offending Christians might hurt you in the pocketbook, but offending Muslims can get you killed. The Times (and many other Western media outlets to be fair) didn't print the cartoons because of intimidation.



i agree with this point.

i want to see the Virgin Mary covered in dung. i don't care who's offended.

same with Mohammad.
 
INDY500 said:


Yep, there's the Virgin Mary picture...dung and all. Still no Danish cartoons.

Offending Christians might hurt you in the pocketbook, but offending Muslims can get you killed. The Times (and many other Western media outlets to be fair) didn't print the cartoons because of intimidation.

Did you even read the article? You obviously didn't.

If you place the cartoons(which were done currently to offend) next to the Chris Ofili painting(done in 1999) in newsprint no one would know to be offended by the painting. No one, except maybe the fact that the Virgin Mary is depicted as :gasp: black. Is that why you find it offensive?

Ok, but since someone told you it was offensive because it uses dung as a medium you are offended. Well Chris Ofili is a Nigerian painter, and guess what elephant dung has been used in paintings since the dawn of art and is still often used in a variety of rituals in Africa. But don't let the facts get in your way.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


except maybe the fact that the Virgin Mary is depicted as :gasp: black. Is that why you find it offensive?

Ok, but since someone told you it was offensive because it uses dung as a medium you are offended. Well Chris Ofili is a Nigerian painter, and guess what elephant dung has been used in paintings since the dawn of art and is still often used in a variety of rituals in Africa. But don't let the facts get in your way.

Holy shit...literally. Now I've heard it all.

Nudity has been used in art since, well, forever as well, but that hardly means that surrounding an image of the Madonna with phonographic cut-outs of vaginas and buttocks wouldn't be perceived by many Christians as offensive.

But this isn't about "art" hanging in a gallery. It's about a picture of it being published in a newspaper that just 24 hours earlier declared it's editorial policy was to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

However, next time I visit Paris and the Musée du Louvre I'll be sure and check out their, no doubt, immense exhibit of Elephant Dung Art. Guess I missed it last time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom