Save The New York Times [from itself]!

Despite the fact that the New York Times has performed miserably from a financial standpoint and recently saw a massive value loss due to crashing ad revenue, I know of no plans for them to go all digital as was the case for another icon of US “journalism”, the $1 wonder – Newsweek.

Maybe the NYT could help itself by actually reporting news rather than the left wing version of “news” which tends to be less than the full accounting of anything. John Hinderaker has a perfect example of how this works as he notes the hyped, hyper-contextualized, breathless reporting on the trumped up al Qaqaa “scandal” from right before the 2004 election and the absolute embargo of any reportage by the leftist media on the Benghazi disaster today:

It is hard to imagine how any newspaper could ignore, or even try to downplay, a story of this magnitude. Yet, if you rely on the New York Times for information, you know little about the battle of Benghazi, and nothing at all about the explosive account that emerged on Friday, fueled in part by the anger of the father of one of the dead American operatives…

Incredible as it may seem, the Times is trying to ignore the charge that the Obama administration rejected calls for help from embattled troops on the ground in Benghazi. Is the Times always so reluctant to cover a foreign policy scandal in the last days of a presidential campaign? Well, no. It depends entirely on which party is in office.

Cast your memory back to October 2004, when George W. Bush was running for re-election against John Kerry, and the Times was trying to help the Kerry campaign any way it could. Eight years ago, the Times fabricated a foreign policy “scandal” out of whole cloth and pushed its faux expose relentlessly, in hopes of unseating a Republican president. The Times’s now-forgotten cause celebre of 2004 was called al Qaqaa.

We all know how much the left hates Fox News but in the words of Brit Hume, they are basically forcing Fox to cover it because they won’t:

“…one of the problems we’re having here is, that it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News and a couple others, to do all the heavy lifting on this story.”

The Guardian in the UK is such a lefty paper, even more so than the NYT, and it is rumored to be going all digital within the next two years – but I actually hope it, the NYT and even Newsweek all survive because we need this window into the mind of the institutional left. London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has an op ed in the Telegraph today that I found to be spot on and quite funny as well. In speaking about the Guardian, he also echoes my feelings about the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe when he says:

Guilt-ridden Lefties will need it to swat the mosquitoes in Tuscany, or to light the wood-burning stoves in their second homes, or to line the tuck boxes of their little ones as they guiltily pack them off – like dear Polly Toynbee – to their fee-paying schools. And it would be a calamity for us Conservatives if we no longer knew what the enemy was thinking. We need a paper that is genuinely, viscerally hostile to anything that looks remotely like a spirit of enterprise and competition. We need a paper that believes capitalism is fundamentally flawed; that wishes fewer people had jobs in financial services; that thinks the euro was and still is a jolly fine idea; that dislikes the ideology of home ownership (except for Guardian journalists, who are allowed to have more than one); that dislikes anything “elitist” (except for the schools attended by the children of Guardian journalists).

We need a paper that believes the answer to all problems is more tax and more regulation. We need to have the enemy in plain view, on the table, in the shops – not skulking online. We need to know what not to think. So I appeal now to all Conservatives and indeed anyone interested in preserving our national heritage. Even if we only have a few hundred copies left, let us keep the Guardian’s print edition – displayed in town halls, perhaps, like the People’s Daily. Never mind the badger. Save the Guardian from extinction!

Save the New York Times!

21 thoughts on “Save The New York Times [from itself]!

    • So it would seem…but like almost all liberals, they can’t see their failures because they are looking for a “higher truth” and in as we all know, in the pursuit of “truth” failures are not a problem…in this context, failures can be spun as “successes”.

        • I think it is pretty funny that our lefty friends accuse us of that when we are more than willing to discuss our failures – look at the back and forth we all had during the Republican primaries – what we refuse to do is to call something a success or a failure based on pure political positions. Our friends are not so even handed – they are all like the New York Times in that if it reflects badly on them, they just ignore it as if it didn’t happen or whitewash it by saying, “we just need to move on” or simply delude themselves and lie about it.

          I’m the first on TRNL to support Romney but even I remain skeptical of his conservative credentials – I don’t believe he is a conservative at heart but I hope that he understands what needs to be done and governs that way. If he doesn’t, I will not defend him, I didn’t defend Bush and I won’t Romney either but I can recognize what a cluster fuck Obama has been – and the hell of it is, I think most of the left does, too. Whether they think he hasn’t been left enough or has just not been able to overcome Republican opposition, they know but won’t put down ideology long enough to get their heads out of their lower intestines to acknowledge the failures and move forward.

          Not long now, a week from Tuesday and we can see if America in happy with another 4 years of a colonoscopy or we can get to work repairing the country…

          • Well, that brings up a few more questions:

            Do you think part of the problem here is that we (the two ‘sides’) genuinely seek different goals? And, if so, how do we reconcile the differences when they are diametrically opposed to each other?

            • There can’t be a reconciliation. I don’t think we share the same goals – I used to think so but our definitions of those goals are so different that there can never be agreement. “Poverty” is a perfect example. I have no problem with a welfare system that provides basic needs for people in “poverty” what the left defines as poverty is that the “poor” don’t have nice things, not that they are in danger of starving. Poverty has just become another process that the left can use to redistribute wealth by defining “poverty” as something relative to everybody else rather than a minimal level of support.

              • Agreed.

                I’ll even take this a step further. Not only do we not have the same goals, we can’t “meet in the middle” because we don’t even have the same language. Oh, we use the same words, but the two sides use different definitions for those words. You and I try to constrain ourselves to the definitions found in the dictionary, whereas the other side redefines any word according to their need at the moment. Re-writing of history follows a similar path. As long as the destruction of our language and history persist, there can be no hope of finding common ground. In truth, as long as this condition continues, there is little hope of keeping society together, let alone forming a common bond/goal.

                  • Kells,

                    Where have you been? I don’t mean that to be rude or snotty in any way, but — seriously — where have you been all these years?

                    That is EXACTLY the point we have been making for as long as I can remember, and you are just now understanding this?

                • No, silly B.! I thought on this thread you boys were referring to Obama, Bush and Romney. I reread it carefully, and see that you were referring to ideologies. Oh, and you were being rude as well as snotty, Mr. Uppity-Puppins!

                  • No, Kells,

                    I wasn’t being rude or snotty, and I was honest and sincere when I told you so.

                    In truth, I am seldom rude, snotty, mean, personal or insulting toward you – not intentionally, anyway. Most times, I am saddened, dismayed, disappointed, confused, bewildered and disheartened by your comments and that is generally what is in my heart when I reply to you. I have tried to explain this to you – many times. Sadly, you have chosen to believe the caricature of me painted by Greg and his friends instead of granting me the truth of what I tell you.

                    What I now struggle with is why I feel this irrational compulsion to respond to someone who – apparently – believes I lie more often than not. It is equally beyond me why such a person would bother reading what I post.

                  • When I tell you the voice in which I mean for my comments to be heard/taken and you tell me I am wrong, you are calling me a liar, Kells.

                    This is part of the liberal/progressive poison so many of us have swallowed without even knowing it. That you believe you have to actually use the word ‘liar’ to call someone a liar is evidence of the pervasive nature of this poison.

                    We have so much to repair, I am beginning to despair (those gratuitous ryhming bells were meant just for Kells 🙂 )

          • Funny how the “progressives” spend so much time in the past. Thought they were supposed to be looking forward. 🙂

          • BOTH sides view the world COMPLETELY differently.

            Our side, the classical liberal/ Thomas Jefferson/ “declaration of Arbroath/ Judeo-Christian/ Locke–side views ALL peoples as having been created equal. No one better than another. Everyone playing under the same rule set/ level playing field.

            The current “self called democrat”/ Obama/ statist/ Wilson Utopia/ Karl Marx– side sees the world filled with 2 kinds of people. First- themselves- the ruling class, elites– smarter/ chosen/ better than everyone else/ whose duty is to DESIGN & ORDER society FROM ABOVE, for their own good.

            The EVERYONE else class, whose DUTY Is to follow the path designed for them by their benevolent task masters. And if “we” do not follow orders dutifully, we will be silenced one way or the other.

            Dictators/ Takers /users

            The statists believe it is their duty/ right to enforce their will upon all others. If you say no, you will be properly silenced in their society.

            • Very good points. In fact, the Left still sees things the way Plato argued for: a ruling elite with all the rights, and a ruled class with no rights — save what the elite allow them. You can see the echoes in the French vs American Revolutions. Know what the difference between the two really is?

              The way both sides view God.

              • I was reading and comparing Americas “declaratiof independence AND Frances’

                Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

                When you compare and contrast them, hindsight is so clear WHY France never lived up to her promise after independence.

                I attempted to write a post. But was unable to explain concisely.I may try once again.

                • Heck, that one’s easy. You can explain it with one word — GOD!

                  Now, if you want to miff Kells, go for the extended version:

                  America believed in God, France didn’t.


Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.