New York Times

Hey, don’t ask us to explain the photo caption. Ask the New York Times.

In case you can’t read the caption, it says: “Hillary Clinton and Chilean President Michelle Bachelet”

Source: RegretTheError.com


He's just too darn intellectual for his own good, that president of ours

We wouldn’t go as far as to say Obama has lost the New York Times (in fact, we’re not sure what kind of hideous crime a Democrat would have to commit in order to lose the support of the Times), but stalwart leftist Maureen Dowd has come perilously close to actually criticizing the President on the pages of the Old Gray Lady.

If Dowd had simply stopped with the headline on her opinion piece – “Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool” – it would have been shocking enough. But she went further. Much, much further.

Here’s how Dowd’s column concludes:

…when he failed to immediately step up to the microphones in Hawaii after the Christmas terror and thank the passengers for bravely foiling the plot that his intelligence community had failed to see, President Cool reached the limits of cool.

No Drama Obama is reticent about displays of emotion. The Spock in him needs to exert mental and emotional control. That is why he stubbornly insists on staying aloof and setting his own deliberate pace for responding — whether it’s in a debate or after a debacle. But it’s not O.K. to be cool about national security when Americans are scared.

Our professorial president is no feckless W., biking through Katrina. He is no doubt on top of the crisis in terms of studying it top to bottom. But his inner certainty creates an outer disconnect.

He’s so sure of himself and his actions that he fails to see that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments.
He’s more like the aloof father who’s turned the Situation Room into a Seminar Room.

Oh, now we get it. It’s his vastly superior intellect that makes him a bad president.

We so stupid.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 29 comments | Share Link


Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to...glug...glug

Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to...glug...glug

The New York Times is nothing if not consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.

They’ve consistently predicted the imminent collapse of the global ice caps for the last 128 years. And yet they were as large in 2008 as they’ve been since satellite readings first began.

Come with us now on a brief tour of the Times global warming hysteria.

1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

Source: Tim Blair


Is Maureen Dowd on the leading edge of liberals fleeing from Barack Obama?

Is Maureen Dowd on the leading edge of liberals fleeing from Barack Obama?

It was a bad weekend in the media for Barack Obama. A very bad weekend, indeed.

Within a 12-hour period, Saturday Night Live did a scathing skit about his profligate spending. Chris Matthews compared him to Jimmy Carter. And to complete the trifecta, Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist and queen of Inside-the-Beltway Liberals, penned this devastating review of the Obama presidency:

If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:

Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.

Oh, one more thing while we’re at it: Gallup confirmed that Obama’s approval rating has now dropped below 50%.

How quickly things change. Just a couple weeks ago, the liberal media was fretting that Obama was losing the independents. Now the liberal media is fretting that he’s losing the liberals.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 10 comments | Share Link


The New York Times speaks with forked tongue

The New York Times speaks with forked tongue

The New York Times is able to take both sides on an issue. Especially when its own financial interests lie on one of the sides.

“The argument against unions–that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands–is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad. . . . The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would. There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important.”
– New York Times editorial, December 29, 2008

“The New York Times News Service will lay off at least 25 editorial employees next year and will move the editing of the service to a Florida newspaper owned by The New York Times Company. . . . The plan for the news service calls for The Gainesville Sun, whose newsroom is not unionized and has lower salaries, to take over editing and page design.”
– New York Times, November 13, 2009

And the funniest thing about the Times hypocrisy is that it was reported by the New York Post.

Source: New York Post via Best of the Web

- by editor | 6 comments | Share Link


New York Times columnist Charles Blow likes Michelle Obama. Perhaps a bit too much

New York Times columnist Charles Blow likes Michelle Obama. Perhaps a bit too much

New York Times columnist Charles Blow loves Michelle Obama. When he makes love, we suspect that he fantasizes that he is the Most Glamorous First Lady in History.

Michelle Obama is the coolest first lady ever…

I could pile on platitudes here about her professional accomplishments, or explore to what degree she is redefining the role of women, or predict how she will be viewed by historians in the pantheon of her predecessors. I could, but I won’t. That’s not my bailiwick.

But I will say that she seems particularly suited to these times. She provides a certain authenticity and clarity of self in a time of uncertainty, projecting a casual grace onto a world of amplified anxiety. She has become a powerful symbol of fearlessness, refinement, frugality and frivolity, managing to be both fun and serious simultaneously. She’s genuinely human.

Mrs. Obama is redefining my concept of a first lady, and I like it.

Oops. Premature ejaculation.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 13 comments | Share Link


Ssssssh! Don't tell any of Thomas Friedman's liberal friends that he supports the American military

Ssssssh! Don't tell any of Thomas Friedman's liberal friends that he supports the American military

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times thinks Obama should accept the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the American military.

Hey, wait. Is this April 1? Nope. Just checked the calendar and it’s October 14. The only other option is that Friedman has had an extremely rare moment of clarity.

What follows are words you never thought you’d see from Friedman and/or the Times:

Let me begin by thanking the Nobel committee for awarding me this prize, the highest award to which any statesman can aspire. As I said on the day it was announced, ‘I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.’ Therefore, upon reflection, I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all.

But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century — the men and women of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War.

… Until the words of Isaiah are made true and lasting — and nations never again lift up swords against nations and never learn war anymore — we will need peacekeepers. Lord knows, ours are not perfect, and I have already moved to remedy inexcusable excesses we’ve perpetrated in the war on terrorism.

But have no doubt, those are the exception. If you want to see the true essence of America, visit any U.S. military outpost in Iraq or Afghanistan. You will meet young men and women of every race and religion who work together as one, far from their families, motivated chiefly by their mission to keep the peace and expand the borders of freedom.

So for all these reasons — and so you understand that I will never hesitate to call on American soldiers where necessary to take the field against the enemies of peace, tolerance and liberty — I accept this peace prize on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. military: the world’s most important peacekeepers.

Thomas Friggin’ Friedman supports the U. S. military? Proof positive that there is a God.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 4 comments | Share Link


The boys at CNBC are feeling their oats again. Joe Kernan went ballistic over an article David Brooks wrote in the New York Times.

Here’s part of what Brooks said:

The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

Kernan couldn’t stomach that nonsense and came unglued on CNBC:

Everyone at these town hall meetings was a plant or a nutcase? Everything’s written off? There’s really no one that disagrees with the edicts of [liberals]? … How can Fox News double MSNBC and CNN combined? How do they have the top ten? … Air America can’t sell an ad. There’s no one that wants to listen to them … Let me guess: liberals are so cerebral and erudite that they don’t, they don’t, they’re at the opera. They’re at the opera, they don’t listen to talk radio or watch TV. They’re reading Sartre. Is that what you’re telling me? I love that, David Brooks is a conservative? Well you tell Rush that his 100 million a year, or whatever he makes isn’t real. Those are, those are fake 100 million. David Brooks, I mean is he a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Who is this guy, I mean, really, he’s the conservative? You know what, he is conservative for the Times.

We say forget that Sartre guy, Joe. Stick with IHateTheMedia.com. Guaranteed to supply your required daily dosage of existential thought.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 10 comments | Share Link


This way today, that way tomorrow, who knows which way the day after that

This way today, that way tomorrow, who knows which way the day after that

The New York Times has offered a harsh assessment of President Obama’s foreign policy.

“For President Obama, the handshakes and hugs during his first visit to the United Nations last week masked a cold reality: nine months into his presidency, he is being forced to retool his most important foreign policy initiatives, from the war in Afghanistan to peace in the Middle East and his diplomatic overture to Iran.”

If the Times article had of touched on the awful handling of Honduras and the abandonment of our long term allies Poland and The Czech Republic we would say that they have summed up his overseas efforts nicely.

It is getting to the point that the New York Times, famous for its unwavering support for Democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists, is stuck with making positive comments about Obama such as “Nice suit.”

“The problem for President Obama is he has made the case in the past that we took our eye off the ball and we should have stayed in Afghanistan,” said former Defense Secretary William Cohen. But now that he is in charge of the war, Mr. Cohen said, Mr. Obama is discovering “he doesn’t have much in the way of options” and time is of the essence. Mr. Cohen added, “The longer you wait, the harder it will be to reverse it.”

Cohen is underestimating Barack Obama. Reversing is something he’s never had a problem with as dozens of his campaign promises can attest.

Source: New York Times

– Written by Patrick Michael

- by editor | 5 comments | Share Link


News flash: The New York Times is conservative

by editor on September 30, 2009

No matter how hard he thinks, George Bush can't remember any support from the New York Times

No matter how hard he thinks, George Bush can't remember any support from the New York Times

The fact that the New York Times is biased is hardly newsworthy. But Media Matters believes that the New York Times is biased to the right. No, really, to the right.

The article complains that Times public editor Clark Hoyt “…manages to get through an entire column about the possibility that the Times is biased in favor of liberals without ever once mentioning the paper’s coverage of the 2000 election or the run-up to the Iraq war, to pick just two of the most obvious counter-examples.”

We must be getting senile. We can’t remember the Times throwing its weight behind George Bush or leading the charge into Iraq. But it gets worse. The article continues:

“The suspicion of bias will never go away. These efforts to bend over backwards to appease the Right — people who will never be appeased — no matter how ridiculous their complaints, in which newspapers like the Times fret over the suspicion of bias regardless of the merits of the complaint, are exactly how the paper ends up handing a presidential election to George W. Bush — and then handing him his Iraq war on a platter.”

To repeat, Media Matters is talking about THE NEW YORK TIMES. Is there another paper named the New York Times that we don’t know about?

Source: MediaMatters.org

– Written by Patrick Michael


The New York Times has a new motto <i>and</i> a new mascot

The New York Times has a new motto and a new mascot

For generations, the New York Times motto was “All the news that’s fit to print.” Things have changed.

The Times official ombudsman waddled in over the weekend (when most people don’t pay much attention to news) to comment on the paper’s cluelessness on the ACORN scandal and other recent stories thoroughly covered by Fox News and talk radio, but ignored the The Gray Lady.

In a mea culpa entitled, “Tuning In Too Late,” Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt admits, “The Times stood still.” What he should’ve said was that the paper stood still in its best ostrich imitation. Either that or its head was stuck deep where the sun never shines. And it wasn’t the first time.

Hoyt understatedly noted of the Times:

[click to continue…]

- by editor | 2 comments | Share Link


For far too long, The Times looked the other way on what it now calls a "can't-look-away" story.

For far too long, The Times looked the other way on what it now calls a "can't-look-away" story.

The New York Times manages to demonstrate one of its problems in a recent headline and another problem in the story’s first paragraph.

Please allow us to demonstrate:

For Edwards, Drama Builds Toward a Denouement

The story of the spectacular rise and fall of John Edwards, with its sordid can’t-look-away dimensions, is moving slowly but deliberately to its conclusion here in North Carolina.

Problem number one: The Times looked away from what they now call a “can’t-look-away” story for more than a year while it was being covered extensively by the National Enquirer.

Problem number two: Any newspaper that would use a word like “denouement” in a headline is speaking over the heads of 95% of its readers. Even the rapidly-decreasing elitist readers of the Times.

Source: New York Times


Former New York Times reporter reinvents himself, instead of reinventing the facts.

Former New York Times reporter reinvents himself, instead of reinventing the facts.

“It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

That was George Costanza’s advice to Jerry Seinfeld who was trying to beat a lie detector.

Jayson Blair, former New York Times reporter, is now integrating that sage bit of wisdom into his new career as a Life Coach. He’s a life coach if he thinks he is.

However, Blair is uniquely suited to be a life coach because he’s led so many of them. For instance, he was a college student who “schmoozed” his way into a reporting job. And, he was also a victim of racial discrimination even though there’s evidence he had his job because of diversity hiring practices.

Besides being two people at once, he’s capable of being two places at once. As a reporter, he could cover a story even though he was hundreds of miles away drinking.

The article indicates that Blair will help with career counseling. Maybe he could offer some tips in creative resume writing?

Washington Post

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


Larrys, Moes and Curlys of the World Unite!

Larrys, Moes and Curlys of the World Unite!

In the New York Times, all political extremists are created equal, but some political extremists are more equal than others.

Take communists, for example.

A Times book review gives a big thumbs up to “Marx’s General,” Tristram Hunt’s whitewashed bio of Friedrich Engels. That’s not surprising, because Marxists always get a pass from the Times despite the fact that their misbegotten philosophy resulted in a hundred million deaths.

Ahhh, but would you expect anything less from the Che Chic t-shirt-wearing psuedo-intellectual set at the Times? After all, this is the same newspaper whose Moscow correspondent once won a Pulitzer Prize for a series of glowing reports on Stalin’s workers’ paradise that conveniently overlooked Uncle Joe’s, shall we say, excesses.

The Times says Marxism is now “back in vogue,” so the review shows us the softer side of Engels – not the guy who fanned revolutions where other people die while he played bridge in his cushy mansions.

You see, the worker’s friend, Engels, enjoyed lobster salad and fox hunting. And if you need any further evidence that he was a hell of a guy, just consider the results of a personality test he took:

“On a personality quiz, three of Engels answers were: ‘Favorite virtue: jollity’; ‘Idea of happiness: Château Margaux 1848’; ‘Motto: take it easy.'”

When you ignore the Stalinist and Maoist nightmare that he and Karl Marx unleashed, Engels sounds so suave, so debonair, so gosh-darn likable.

It’s kind of like reading that Hitler enjoyed playing croquet and his motto was “Takin’ Care of Business.”

Source: NYTimes.com
Moes, Larrys, and Curlys of the World Unite!

- by editor | 1 comment | Share Link


new-york-times-building

America’s so-called “newspaper of record” must have set a record with this correction to a recent article on Walter Cronkite:

“An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. ‘The CBS Evening News’ overtook ‘The Huntley-Brinkley Report’ on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of ‘The CBS Evening News’ in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

Nah, it’s funny.

Source: New York Times via Powerline

- by editor | 4 comments | Share Link


It's always party time at the New York Times - Democratic party time.

It's always party time at the New York Times - Democratic party time.

Yes, we hate the media. And no part of the media works up our ire more than that vaunted bastion of liberalism, The New York Times.

You’ll see what we mean when you compare these excerpts from New York Times editorials about two different 5-4 Supreme Court decisions.

First is the except from Ricci v DeStefano, the recent firemen discrimination case:

The case is already being used as ammunition against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, who sided with New Haven at the appeals court level. If the Monday ruling says anything about Judge Sotomayor, however, it underscores the reasonableness of her views…Four of the nine justices–including David Souter, whose seat Judge Sotomayor would take–agreed with the result she reached.

Now here’s what the Times said about another 5-4 decision in a case called Boumediene v Bush:

On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.

The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone. . . .

It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision.

So is dissent is good or bad? Or is it only good when it comes from liberals and only bad when it comes from conservatives?

We’re so confused. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say the Times is confused.

Source: Wall Street Journal

- by editor | 1 comment | Share Link


If you still own any stock in the New York Times, you’ll call your broker screaming, “Sell” halfway through this hilarious clip.

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


The New York Times. Pushed on corners in some of the finest neighborhoods.

The New York Times. Pushed on corners in some of the finest neighborhoods.

Not a single reader. Not one. At least not online.

That’s what Derek Gottfrid announced at a conference sponsored by Advertising Age and Creativity. Gottfrid, the Times’ Senior Software Architect and Product Technologist (his business cards have to accordian out like a Playboy centerfold just to accommodate the length of his title), said the Times online has adopted the affectation of calling their online readers “users.”

“When we think traditionally about creation [at The New York Times] it was limited to people within the Times,” he said at the Creativity and Technology conference. “We created for readers … [for whom] it was a passive experience. But as we moved online, we wanted to move people from readers to users.”

It’s interesting to note that drug dealers also refer to their customers as users. And much like the New York Times, the dealers’ products also cloud their customers minds, impair their judgment, and cause irrational behavior.

In other words, good choice of names, New York Times.

Source: Advertising Age

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


Dueling Headlines

by editor on June 1, 2009

“In Ex-Convicts’ Bomb Case, Steps and Missteps, on Tape.”
Source: New York Times

“Path to Radical Islam Began in Jails.”
Source: New York Post

While the New York Times continued its politically correct policy of denying the obvious when it comes to radical Islam, the New York Post didn’t mince words about the Koran-carrying, would-be synagogue-bombing terror suspects arrested last week.

Source: TimesWatch.org


First they called it global warming. Then they called it climate change. We continue to call it bogus.

First they called it global warming. Then they called it climate change. We continue to call it bogus.

The New York Times has actually spilled the beans on the latest global warming scam. The PR firm behind the whole thing has figured out that the movement is losing steam and has suggested that the way to regain momentum is to come up with new, scary words.

The Times article begins:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

After the requisite amount of yammering, the Times article concludes like this:

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

We’re going to go wash our hands now. Not to stave off the swine flu, but because we feel a little slimy after quoting the New York Times in a positive way.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


“Wholesalers expect the New York Times to increase its price from $1.50 to $2.00 for Monday to Saturday editions and from $5 to $6 on Sundays. A spokeswoman declined to comment.”

C’mon, man, these geniuses have Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on staff. Maybe they should ask him to explain the law of supply and demand someday at lunch.

Source: Financial Times


New York Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger frantically negotiating to save his left wing publishing empire.

New York Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger frantically negotiating to save his left wing publishing empire.

According to the latest rumors swirling around the Big Apple, the New York Times Company is stripping away more assets in an attempt to head off bankruptcy. If they were playing strip poker, you’d say they’re down to their skivvies.

According to a nearly gleeful report in the New York Post:

NYT Co. May Sell Classical Radio Station

Beethoven and Bach could become the latest victims of the New York Times Co.’s financial crisis. Rumors are raging that top suits have discussed putting classical radio station WQXR (96.3 FM) on the block to shore up the company’s dwindling cash stash.

The Times has already sold off its landmark headquarters building to escape killer mortgage payments. They’re threatening to shutter the Boston Globe because closing it is cheaper than operating it. Their share of the Boston Red Sox is also on the chopping block. And now it looks like classical music may be the latest victim of the Times downturn.

According to a report last week, the company has $1.3 billion in debts and a relatively paltry $36 million in the bank.

You can’t feel too badly for The Times. They sold out to the extreme left many years ago. And now they’re willing to sell out to just about anybody.

Source: New York Post

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


There’s a reason Karl Rove is a political advisor and not a diplomatic advisor. He’s just not very diplomatic.

He appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and had this to say about New York Times publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger:

“I thought Pinch Sulzberger was right to worry about why he had to sell his building and his stock is in the toilet, and I’m glad it is… Look I’m from Texas. You take a New York liberal. I met this guy, little Pinch Sulzberger. He is a elitist, effete snob who thinks he know better than the rest of America and has views that are distinctly outside the mainstream of what America is all about.”

C’mon, Karl. Tell us how you really feel. Don’t be so shy. Do you like the guy or not?

Source: Gateway Pundit

- by editor | 2 comments | Share Link


It's just party-party-party with well-known social organization Hezbollah. (Please ignore assault rifle in logo)

It's just party-party-party with well-known social organization Hezbollah. (Please ignore assault rifle in logo)

Oh, those mapcap cutups at the New York Times. Sometimes we just can’t tell if they’re yanking our chains or just complete morons.

The paper of record ran a story about Hezbollah on Tuesday and never quite got around to using the word “terrorist.” Instead, they called the group as a “military, political and social organization in Lebanon with strong ties to Iran.”

Excuse us, but we’re having a little difficulty reconciling the “social organization” aspect of Hezbollah with the article’s opening paragraph:

“Egypt released new details on Monday of what it said was a Hezbollah plot to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip, to attack Israeli tourist sites in the Sinai Peninsula and to fire on ships in the Suez Canal. Officials said the police were hunting for 10 Lebanese suspects believed to be hiding in the mountainous terrain of central Sinai.”

We think the Times is right. Hezbollah is just a bunch of crazy kids trying to have a good time. We hear their Spring Formal Dance and Non-Virgin Stoning is the highlight of Lebanon’s social calendar.

Source: New York Times via NewsMax.com

- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


There's nothing more fun than watching the media devour themselves.

There's nothing more fun than watching the media devour themselves.

This may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but the truth-challenged New York Times has attacked the Los Angeles Times for disguising advertisements as news stories.

One day after catching holy hell for disguising a front age ad for a new TV show as a news story, the LA Times did it again.

An ad in Sunday’s Calendar entertainment section ran alongside a four-page ad for a new movie called “The Soloist.” The four pages are designed to look like a news.

A Paramount Pictures spokesperson said the Times approached them with the idea. The complete advertising package included an online contest and promos that ran on KTLA, which is a Times sister company.

“You dress an ad up to look like editorial content precisely because you think it will make it more valuable,” said Geneva Overholser of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication. “Fundamentally, that’s an act of deception.”

This is shocking. No, not the deception on the part of the Los Angeles Times. Everyone knows that. What’s shocking is that Overholser seems surprised by it.

Source: New York Times