What bothers the New York Times today.
or: The Pot has words with the Kettle
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Liberals — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The political section of the New York Times is distortion of the political truth, a deliberate casting of negative light on whatever subject crosses the reporters' fanciful worldview.
A snapshot from the moment I type:
Republican Woes Lead to Feuding by Conservatives.
Democrats Make Big Gains in Fund-Raising, but G.O.P. Has More Cash on Hand.
Bush Campaigns for Lawmakers Caught up in Controversy.
Confident Democrats Draft Broad Health Care Agenda.
It's spin, and the spinning New York Times is editorially outraged:
Read More…
The homestretch of the campaign season historically puts treacherous distortions of the truth before the voters, none more so this year than a mysterious California letter informing thousands of Latino-Americans that immigrants have no right to vote. “You are advised,” begins the Spanish-language letter, dripping with authority, that if “you’re an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration.” It now appears that someone in a Republican Congressional campaign conjured a contemporary spin on a classic scare tactic from torchlight politics.
The intimidating letter, sent to some 14,000 immigrant families in California's 47th Congressional district, has evidently been liked to the campaign of Tan Nguyen, himself a Vietnamese immigrant. The Republicans have demanded that Nguyen remove himself from the race.
"I learned information that allows me to draw the conclusion that not only was Mr. Nguyen's campaign involved in this, but that Mr. Nguyen was personally involved in expediting the mailer,'' Orange County Republican Chairman Scott Baugh said.
Baugh, who called the letter ''obnoxious and reprehensible,'' said his group's executive committee voted unanimously to ask Nguyen to drop out.
And the Times itself covers the story.
This was not a Republican Party effort, as the paper would like to have its readers/voters believe. It is an outside group, perhaps aligned with a single candidate, playing with voter intimidation, a campaign tactic as old as voter suppression.
Further from the lefty NY broadsheet:
Comparable outrages surface daily now, with an ad for black voters in six states misrepresenting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s politics in a staged chat between two black women: “Dr. King was a real man,” says one actress. “You know he was a Republican,” the other chimes in.
First, they have nothing to back their assertion that "[c]omparable outrages surface daily." In fact, they invented it to lend force to their dismal opinion. Secondly, the Washington Post reports that some people on each political side are angered by the ad, which also asserts that Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan. While the latter is true – and former Klansman Robert Byrd is a Democrat – it has been argued that this was in a different era. (The Times actually blames Southerners, but that is just sick.) What was the political registration of the slain civil rights leader? Is it an outrage or sloppiness of context? I can and do reject the ad without using the Times' hyperventilating conjuring of "treachery."
No, treachery would be exposing the existence a secret intelligence program operated by your country during wartime, Messrs. Risen and Lichtblau, and the mastermind, Bill Keller.
So it goes, with some ethically challenged spinners creating false news clippings and tucking them knifelike into campaign videos of real stories. Even Lincoln is being falsely quoted by defenders of the Iraq war. The 16th president never said that Congressional critics who damage wartime morale “should be arrested, exiled or hanged.”
Who said that he did?
The ethically challenged spinners on the New York Times' editorial board are trying to paint the whole of the GOP with a dye extracted from a few fringe type for whom they do not care.
What to do, beyond celebrating the continuing pungency of free speech across the nation?
I'm sorry that the paper does not enjoy Americans speaking freely without having first attended journalism school, but I fully support our press freedoms, despite the pungent – nay, acrid odor emanating from the editorial board room at 229 West 43rd Street. This does not mean that it should be allowed to billow like a poisonous cloud without at least an attempt to distribute an anecdote.
Their editorial is a negative campaign which selects and spins to settle matters in its own parallel universe.
What were they preaching against?
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | Irony Watch 10/19/2006 — Comments (33) »
What bothers the New York Times today. 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This totally moved me. It was sent by a friend whom I served with in Nam. For a guy like me to shed a tear it has some work to do. Read it as an American.
[We'll leave this up because Kevin Tillman's entitled to his opinion, bitter and angry as it is. Alas for thea2b, this will be the pinnacle of his attempts to modify the results of the 2006 election. Sad to think that 50+ years of life, and this alone to show for it... - Moe Lane]
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
[*If by 'tremendous' one means 'recycled'. - Moe Lane]
Just upchuck. No tears. As an American.
I am truly sorry for his loss. But as he, the "9/11 Widows" and Cindy Sheehan have proved, losing a loved one makes you qualified to comment on politics like my Grandmother's death makes me an expert on cancer.
can be found in his militant atheism. That is what really set him off (and a lot more like him).
They cannot believe that people of faith (including the President) can ever be or do or think anything right, so therefore they must all be evil lying criminals.
It is part and parcel to the whole sickness that has enveloped the political left since the reign of terror.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
As a Veteran I would just blame anti-Americanism. It's sad that you have to resort to bashing non-Christians.
That attitude is precisely why Libertarians are so cynical and skeptical of the Republican Party. Most Libertarians are Ayn Rand Objectivists, Atheists, Agnostics or Deists like me.
It's insulting to me and other Republicans to have "Christian Righters" pigeonholing us all as liberals and leftwingers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I hate Islamo-Fascism PRECISELY because the Radical Muslims HATE CIVIL LIBERTIES!! and hate Darwinists like me. Thus I am a hardcore Republican who wishes to see the War on Islamo-Fascism increased tenfold.
Don't you dare insult non-Christians like me, by assuming we all are leftists who hate America. Don't you dare.
I humbly ask for a retraction and apology on your part.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
What Kyle did was Generalize. And while it is impolite and non-PC, it is typically accurate. And all the evidence supports the generalities pasted to the Libertarians by Republicans.
However, like all generalities, there are exceptions to what Kyle said. You appear to be one of them and I, for one, am grateful for it.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
point one: I am more of a libertarian than a conservative myself
point two: I know many atheists who are not of the militant type, I was not attacking them.
Point three: All of the militant atheists I have ever known (those who are filled with hate at religion) are mixed up fools just like Tillman. It is the root of all their other so called values.
That may be a generalization, but it is what I have discovered.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
What part of the current political landscape would you believe should be covered by a hypothetical more neutral newspaper? If the stories of political manuevering and "outrages" are not germane to this election cycle, what would be? Do you believe there is a more balanced take on the current election events?
I'm not arguing with your interpretation on the not-so-subtle tone of glee in these articles, but what good election news for the GOP is not being covered?
Can I start? Can I?
1) The economy
2) The fact that Iran is being taken seriously, as is North Korea
3) Democrats are qualified to comment on morality like Keith Richards is qualified to comment on health and fashion
Keep setting up those straw men - you're scared of the real ones.
But to your list: the original article was discussing electoral hijinks, comments and press releases and speeches from the campaigns, and the general tone of the election. My question was, what electoral activities should the article have covered?
People here have stressed that the election should be focusing on the issues, not Foley, or Ney, or Cunningham, etc, and your list hits one or two (I'm not sure that "The GOP: we take Iran seriously" is a winner, but I digress). Yet the posts even here have announced de-bunked hits on Casey's campaign staff, Brown's child support or lack thereof, and now apparently a phone sex call from a Democratic candidate. This seems confirmation of the electoral noise which distracts from the issues.
The one thing I am really happy about is since 1994, nearly all the lefties hiding under the guise of "impartiality" have been smoked out. Among the cockroaches squinting in the light of day is the NYT.
The only issue of note to the Times is the destruction of a President and the demotion of a party, regardless of what effect it has on their reputation or the good of the United States of America.
And that, my friend, is the point.
Richards has commented on health and fashion. Regarding his health he has said it is good but his diet isn't for everyone. On fashions, he has said that he is a burned out drug addict and he is aware that fashion exists.
Here is what a Democratic Congress will look:
Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act -- H.R. 3760
Gas Stamps -- H.R. 3712
Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456
Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300
Expand Medicare to Include Diapers -- H.R. 1052
Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683
Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus -- H.R. 5563
Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151
Bill of Welfare Rights -- H.J. Res. 29-35
The MSM is inherently dishonest when it comes to its political agenda.
doesn't talk about this dreck because the support it --- actually it doesn't go far enough for the buffoons at "The Times."
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
H.R. 1: Articles of Impeachment of President George Walker Bush
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Diana Irey, apparently.
She said at a news conference May 24, ... "Our 16th President once said, and I quote: 'Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.'"
I wish he HAD said it, so I could agree with it. Would someone please say it so I can agree with it? Or should I just say it and agree with myself?
She evidently thought President Lincoln had uttered those words.
The article at Factcheck concludes:
After savoring the applause of her partisan audience, Irey went on to make clear that she wasn't actually advocating hanging Murtha, saying that "Lincoln's remedy" was too extreme for him.
And I'm not holding that site up as gospel; rather, I'm looking at what they assert. Irey did not advocate hanging "members of Congress," as the Times erroneously alleges, nor did she advocate such treatment for Murtha.
You are a victim of their disingenous disinformation.
Irey did not advocate hanging
No one said that she was, including the original Times article. The article asserts that she said Lincoln did, which she did, and which Lincoln didn't.
No disinformation there.
However, she did not claim that Lincoln called for the death penalty for members of Congress who speak those things. She "quoted Lincoln" about treasonous people in general.
And to bring this back to the point of my post, the editorialists wrote: "Even Lincoln is being falsely quoted by defenders of the Iraq war." Diane Irey is not "defenders of the Iraq war." She is a single supporter. The paper manipulated this to assert that the Republican Party was doing this.
So the article contends that his non-quote is being used by Iraq war supporters. Your issue is singular versus plural. Here's one:
Edward Daley in article called The Party of Treason. And the original factcheck article mentions thousands of postings on the internet, which a google check confirmed instantly: it's in people's signatures and the subject of posts all over freerepublic and other conservative blogs, such as HotAir.
So, to summarize, it has been used, by more than one person, who are Iraqi war supporters. I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the disinformation in the Times articles.
fabricated a story about Bush 41 to the effect that he had never seen a supermarket checkout scanner.
They are not in a position to instruct anyone about telling the truth.
named the "New York Times"?
I vaguely remember this was widely beluieved to be the case.
I wonder if this present newspaper bearing that name could be asked to drop the name out of respect for the dead?
Let's not forget that as long ago as the 1930's the NYT was lying to cover up Stalin's atrocities.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
one of the great anti-American newspapers.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
but with it's constant anti-American stance it's no wonder that the paper of record has experience a 39% plunge in profit as reported here. So it will soon join the dead... God bless the marketplace.
Surely you jest!
Why that would be like a bakery selling bread!