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”
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
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 a devastating review of the Obama presidency.
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
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 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
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.
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
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?
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
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 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
For generations, the New York Times motto was “All the news that’s fit to print.” Things have changed. The Times official ombudsman commented on the paper’s cluelessness on the ACORN scandal and other recent stories.
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:
Continue reading “New New York Times motto: Better late than never”
Jayson Blair, former New York Times reporter, is now integrating a sage bit of wisdom into his new career as a Life Coach: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.” He’s a life coach if he thinks he is.
“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
America’s so-called “newspaper of record” must have set a record with this correction to a recent article on Walter Cronkite
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
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.
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
If you still own any stock in the New York Times, you’ll call your broker screaming, “Sell” halfway through this hilarious clip.
If you still own any stock in the New York Times, you’ll call your broker screaming, “Sell” halfway through this hilarious clip.
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
“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
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
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
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
There’s nothing funnier than actually looking at the “internals” of liberal polls. Because they often reveal truths the summaries gloss over.
For example, here’s what the summary of the latest CBS/New York Times says:
Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, suggesting that he is enjoying some success in his critical task of rebuilding the nation’s confidence, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
It continued:
(J)ust 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.
Now here’s what the summary didn’t tell you. Look deeper into the poll at the demographic breakdown of who was actually questioned and you quickly see how skewed the results are. Who participated in the poll?
39% Democrats
23% Republicans
30% Independents
Say what? 69.6% more Democrats than Republicans? President Obama only got 53% of the vote. In the recent House election in upstate New York a Democrat only got 50% of the vote in a Democrat district.
So how about if you make this closing paragraph the new opening paragraph of the New York Times/CBS poll summary:
“The latest fraudulent CBS/New York Times poll kept questioning Democrats until we got the answers to line up with the story we had already written. Here are the results of that bogus poll.”
Source: TimesWatch.org
The New York Times is making headlines for ignoring news that could have damaged Barack Obama, who as you may have noticed, is a Democrat.
According to the Bulletin, “A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a ‘a game changer.’”
An informant had been providing inside information to The Unofficial Democratic Mouthpiece about ACORN’s election activities and several stories had been written. The articles abruptly stopped when it was revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office as a way to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”
In what may have been a rare moment of candor, The Times reporter actually told the informant that editors wanted to kill the story because “it was a game changer.”’
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) said the footsie-playing between Obama and ACORN could be a violation of federal election law.
The Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications, Catherine Mathis, stated in an email, “political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.”
Take that for what it’s worth. After all, it comes from the New York Times.
Source: The Bulletin
On one hand, the Times doesn’t like Kirsten Gillibrand, New York’s new senator, because they fret that she may be a closet conservative. So the paper ran a front page story attacking her work as an attorney for Philip Morris back in 1996.
On the other hand, the Times has been conspicuously silent when it comes to Anthony Walker, President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Civil Division. West defended John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban nabbed in Afghanistan after 9-11.
Our theory is that the Times is upset at the difference in results the two attorneys produced.
“The industry beat back the federal perjury investigation,” the Times said about the tobacco litigation, “a significant legal victory at the time, but not one that Ms. Gillibrand is eager to discuss.”
Lindh, on the other hand, was sent to the Big House for 20 years.
Looks like John Walker Lindh hired the wrong lawyer. And so did President Obama. Lindh might want to start smoking and hire Gillibrand for his appeal.
Source: TimesWatch.com
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s latest bailout plan is causing a personal crisis of confidence for Paul Krugman, the New York Times’ Nobel-prize winning economist.
The plan is supposed to convince private investors to take up to $1 trillion in toxic assets off the hands of troubled banks.
“This is more than disappointing,” Krugman said in the Times. “In fact it fills me with a sense of despair.”
“It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.”
You know things are bad when we’re not pleased by anything that causes despair in Paul Krugman.
Source: New York Times
Quick. Break out the smelling salts. We’re feeling a little weak in the knees. The New York Times has admitted that Barack Obama isn’t who they thought he was.
“But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.”
“Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.”
The following translation provided as a public service by IHateTheMedia.com:
The New York Times said, “Obama’s not who we thought he was.”
The New York Times meant, “We thought he was going to be Lincoln, but he turns out to be Lenin.”
Source: New York Times
Every day, 365 days a year, the New York Times cranks out more than one million copies of shoddy reportage also known as a newspaper. Entire forest have given their lives so that the New York Times might live lie.
But that doesn’t keep them from chastising Americans for flushing toilet paper down the drain.
In an article called “What Mr. Whipple Didn’t Say: Softer Paper Is Costly to Forests,” the Times reveals that Americans like their bathroom tissue thick, silky and soft as a baby’s bottom (so to speak).
In their view, this makes you a bad person because millions of trees get wiped out just so you can wipe up. If you were simply willing to do your duty with, say, a dried-out old corn cob or a recycled Audi, those trees could grow up, get married, go to law school and live long, happy productive lives.
Don’t take this sitting down. Begin recycling the New York Times by using it as toilet paper.
You might even say that if you get behind the New York Times, the New York Times will get behind you. If you know what we mean.
Source: New York Times
Taking financial advice from the New York Times is like taking health tips from Dr. Kevorkian. That’s why you have to take the financially shaky newspaper’s assessment of the “stimulus” plan with a grain of salt. Maybe a block of salt.
CNBC’s Jim Cramer thinks it’s so bad and that the New York Times coverage of the bill is so deceitful that went on one of his trademark rants while discussing it.
“Now if you were to believe what’s in the papers, holy cow, except for the funny papers,” Cramer said, “you would think this package was wonderful.”
“Look at the front page of The New York Times today,” he continued. “I love this one. ‘Measuring a Victory’ by this guy, Stevenson…it’s like a comedy routine. ‘It is a quick, sweet victory for the new president and potentially a historic one.’ Who edits this B.S.?”
Cramer went on to carve the “stimulus” package up like a plump Thanksgiving turkey.
And that is what’s known in literary circles as an apt metaphor. Or maybe it’s an apt simile. Or one of those other literary things.
Here’s all the evidence you need – if you still needed any — to convince yourself that the New York Times sees the world differently than you do.
After the stock market dropped nearly 400 points upon hearing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s vague outline of his “stimulus” plan, The Times seemed to blame the decline on television’s talking heads.
“Initial reviews for the man and his plan were not good, however. Stock markets slid through the day, perhaps spurred downward by withering punditry on the business-news cable channels faulting Mr. Geithner for not providing more details, particularly on stemming home foreclosures. Senators of both parties lodged similar complaints at a hearing.”
Next week the Times has scheduled an article blaming Captain Sullenberger for running into those poor geese.
After beating the drum of defeat for the last six years, the New York Times has reconsidered. After countless articles filled with words like lost cause…civil war…boondoggle…hopeless…Vietnam…quagmire… the Times has finally seen the obvious.
“This is what victory in the war in Iraq was supposed to look like,” said an article called America’s Scorecard in Iraq.” “Fifteen million Iraqis voting in free and fair (largely) elections, emerging from their polling stations with their purple-stained fingers in an atmosphere that was free (largely) of intimidation or violence.”
In other news, the Times announced that it foresees an imminent victory over Japan in World War II.
