FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE

Tuesday

Crossing the NYT line

As I’ve noted time and time again, the New York Times has never shied away from splashing their outrageous liberal bias and firm opposition to anything conservative all over the front page.

When they commit pure treason by exposing a top secret terrorist financial surveillance program, they think nothing of it. When they condemn the showing of Saddam’s execution, yet endorse the showing of terrorist propaganda footage of our soldiers being killed, they don’t flinch one bit.

However, if one of their reporters goes on a talk show and expresses his desire for America to WIN the Iraq War, there will be hell to pay.

Michael Gordon, the Chief Military Correspondent for the New York Times, appeared on the January 8th edition of the “Charlie Rose” show. On the show, he made the following comment about the war:

“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it, one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.”


A New York Times reporter expresses his personal desire to see the U.S. prevail in Iraq, and what happens? He is publicly chastised by the New York Times. Editor Byron Calame of the NYT wrote:

“Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration."


That's funny. The NYT says that they disapprove of reporters expressing personal opinions about Iraq. However, another NYT reporter, Neil MacFarquhar, expressed his opinion about Iraq, ALSO ON THE "CHARLIE ROSE" SHOW. But, since it was a negative view of the war and America, the NYT didn't say a word. MacFarquhar said:

“If you talk to people my age -- I’m in my mid-40s -- and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk.

And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation.”


So the NYT approves of and endorses terrorist propaganda, they don’t bat an eye as they commit an inexcusable act of TREASON, and they tow the Liberal line like they are on the Democrat party payroll.

But, if any of their reporters dares to believe that the U.S. should WIN the Iraq War, that crosses the line.

Convinced yet?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment



<< Home