Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 11th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default New York Times


[NYT is THE paper in the U.S. It is owned by jews, and edited by jews, and many of its reporters are jews. What the NYT says is the going 'liberal' line. Here is about as biased an article as you will ever see. It represents the Party's fear of the rapidly expanding home-schooling revolution as detracting dollars and brains from Official Lies of the Jew-Controlled Central Government (ZOG). A news story about a family of feral blacks is used as a news peg to bash White selection out of a predatory, destructive, jew-rigged System.]


http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=741103&postcount=79

http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=741107&postcount=80
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Archive of White-school media critic Christopher Donovan, who covers the NYT frequently:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...-Archives.html
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Media Watch

Christopher Donovan
The Gray Wall of Silence:

What White New York Times Readers Should Know About What’s Fit To Print

Earlier, I wrote about the New York Times’ newly announced policy of censoring racially conscious reader comment on the internet and the New York Times’ Magazine’s nearly all-Jewish editorial content, and how whites are excluded from the conversation.

But the big paper itself — sometimes called “The Old Gray Lady” — has erected an impenetrable wall of silence around the vast swath of American life occupied by white people. What’s more, in this essay, you’ll get some inside information on attempts by the Times’ own staffers to breach that wall, and the results.

In a story typical for its baffling refusal to account for white people, Times reporter Sam Roberts gave us a front-page story on Nov. 17, 2007 about how Hispanic names are beginning to outnumber “Anglo,” or white, names, in America.

Beyond the statistics, reporter Roberts offered several crowing quotes from Hispanics who were tickled to be beating out the whites:

“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Roberts quoted a banker named Luis Padilla. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”

Whites — or “Anglos,” as Roberts calls them — were not quoted at all. Did a Wilson or a Taylor have a thought on being displaced by the Garcias and the Rodriguezes? Not that you saw in the New York Times. One might reasonably ask: If it’s acceptable for Hispanics to be enthusiastic about outnumbering whites, are whites correspondingly entitled to be concerned about the trend? Again: the Times isn’t asking.

The Times might have justified itself by running a story about this demographic trend without quoting any random individuals, Hispanic or white, about their feelings. But that’s not what they chose to do. They deliberately included quotes from Hispanics, thereby setting up the question about why they didn’t talk to whites in big, bold, neon letters.

Could Mr. Roberts have secured such a quote, only to have it edited out later? You won’t find out. Try telephoning him at the Times, and you will be told that he does not speak to the public. Which is odd, considering that he’s ostensibly writing about it in his capacity as a demographics reporter for the nation’s leading newspaper. But the Times’ attitude toward the public — especially the white public — is worse still.

This writer penned a short and reasonable letter to the editor complaining about this fairly obvious omission. (I know that complaints about un-run letters to the editor fall on the ears as desperate, so please bear with me for a second.) Having seen several similar letters run in some of the nation’s top newspapers, I thought this one might stand a chance, despite the fact that I am not writing from Cambridge and do not hold an ambassador post.

Unable to restrain myself, and not wanting to cross in the mail with this blog essay, I telephoned the desk to check. The woman who answered the phone returned after digging for a few minutes and said that “you may well hear from us” about my letter. I was tantalized. But when the standard period of a week passed and the letter did not run, I knew it would never. A follow-up call confirmed it.

Convinced, however, that the issue of the media’s ignoring of whites was more important than my own satisfaction at seeing a letter run, I tried contacting the public editor, Clark Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt’s position as “public editor” is more theoretical than real, because, as with reporters, he does not speak to the public. You must send an e-mail, which is almost certainly not read by Mr. Hoyt himself. While I certainly understand that open lines might make for time on the phone with lunatics, why have a position as “public editor” if that person won’t speak to the readers?

Alas, attempts to contact the public editor were fruitless. And you will almost certainly never see Mr. Hoyt address these issues in his column.

So, not only does the New York Times refuse to speak to whites in news stories about which they’re half the topic, it won’t even speak to white readers who seek to comment about that practice. I would say that it’s harder to imagine how much more thoroughly whites could be shut out, but as the essay linked to above shows, it’s even willing to censor the comments they do have that make it past the front door.

It all raises the question: what would have to happen for a New York Times reporter to speak to a white person as a member of the white race, and quote him or her? Read on: it almost happened.

About ten years ago, I had emerged from a successful challenge to a journalism internship at the Boston Globe that excluded whites. I did not pursue the internship because I was employed as a reporter elsewhere, but one reporter took notice of all this: Seth Schiesel, then covering the communications industry for the New York Times. Mr. Schiesel, who I believe is biracial, was intrigued enough by my story to invite me to lunch, at which we discussed my challenge to the internship, affirmative action, and journalism.

He told me that he was considering doing a story about my challenge, perhaps along with other whites kept from jobs by affirmative action. He also suggested that it didn’t stand a good chance of running, for several reasons, one of which was that it may have been too self-referential: The Times owns (and I think then owned) the Boston Globe, and papers are wary of covering themselves. He also hinted that he had come along as a reporter himself through the very internship I’d been denied, or a similar one, and had worked for a time on the Globe’s editorial desk. But I was in turn intrigued that a reporter from the Times would have taken notice at all.

Again, needless to say, Mr. Schiesel’s story did not see the light of day. But my encounter with him serves as a useful piece of information for white media consumers: the media’s black hole of political correctness is so powerful, almost nothing escapes. If a reporter inside goes against all odds and indulges a little curiosity about the plight of whites, it will not be “fit to print,” as the Times says.

What we do see, however, are the inevitable disasters, like the saga of Jayson Blair, a young black reporter for the Times fired for concocting stories from whole cloth. It is hard to imagine that a collection of people as well-educated and inquisitive as the staff of the New York Times doesn’t look at the Jayson Blair episode and wonder whether there isn’t something deeply wrong with the whole multiculturalism project. But no. It carries on.

In Coloring the News, a 2001 book on the devastating effects of multiculturalism on journalism, writer William McGowan’s references to the New York Times in the index go on for so long, they seem to cover half the book. Occidental Observer readers looking for detailed information on this topic would do well to take a look at this book. What’s especially interesting are the repeated instances in which, when McGowan sought to talk to journalists about these problems, they begged off — or asked for anonymity — because of the career-ending risks of saying the wrong thing. Such is our “free” press.

In a 1993 special publication of National Review called “The Decline of American Journalism,” writer Daniel Seligman recounts how an in-office “diversity” team at the New York Times had such internal divisions it had to retire to Tarrytown, NY for a two-day retreat in which members were subjected to psychological testing. What was the issue? Whether white journalists should be whipped in public — or in private?

I suspect there is one overriding reason for the New York Times’ — and the rest of the media’s — refusal to speak to white Americans as members of a group. The minute such a thing happens, whites, as a group, will be recognized as America’s newest, and biggest, interest group. This would be cataclysmic — a virtual warping of America’s political space-time continuum. With a few strokes of the keyboard, one writer will have changed the course of history.

For the Times to voluntarily reach out like this, something incredible would have to happen. It’s more likely to be forced along by overwhelming current events. The question is, how much longer can it keep whites as a group at bay?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...aySilence.html


Links in the above article:

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages. Guess which types of comments won't make the cut.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...VoxPopuli.html

Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/op...0A&oref=slogin
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Vox Populi, Verboten

by Christopher Donovan

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages. Guess which types of comments won't make the cut.

New York Times’ “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt announced in his most recent column that our paper of record will soon begin allowing reader comments to be posted on its Web pages. See Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet, Nov. 4, 2007.

Before delving in, I knew exactly The Times’ concern: racially conscious whites. Midway through the column, Hoyt confirms this by telling us who won’t be allowed to appear: “Take, for example, ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’, who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times ‘have all the displaced ILLEGALS form the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Builiding... and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront (sic) of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.”

Hoyt proudly tells readers that he personally directed that the comment be removed. Needless to say, he does not ask whether Hispanics are indeed urinating outside. Hoyt also informs us that to ensure future censorship of racially conscious comments, the Times has hired a four-person Memory Hole team to seek out and destroy any blips of white racial consciousness.

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.” It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority. The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

One might think the sentiments revealed by the Internet would cause the media to do some self-evaluation. If it really cares about fair and insightful coverage of American society, as well as reporting to its audience, it might ask whether its coverage is geared toward that. If white Americans are angry about what has happened to their country, why not cover that, even you as the journalist disagree? They might just find that their (mostly white) readers appreciate seeing their side of the story for once, instead of the incessant coverage of any and all minority complaints.

But this assumes, of course, that the mainstream media is interested in either fair coverage or maintaining readers. In fact, it is not interested in either. On racial issues, the media does not waver from a steady course of denying inherited racial differences, denying Jewish influence, extolling the supposed virtues of “diversity” and denigrating whites. The biggest story of the past 50 years is this: America had a white majority approaching 90 percent for several hundred years, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority. But that story gets no coverage. Whites are not asked how they feel about this. It prompts the question: if an entire race died in the forest and the media didn’t cover it, would it make a noise?

This trend has continued, despite a steady drop in circulation at most major papers over the years. The illegal immigrants so beloved by The New York Times are not, I am guessing, reading The New York Times.

The proper journalistic reaction to ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’ is to find out why he believes as he does, not shut him up. That an organization ostensibly dedicated to gathering information, viewpoints and trends would announce itself to be working against that very mission by censoring whites is remarkable.

The irony is lost on The Times. But we now at least have proof of how dead-set against whites it is. And with the Internet, we know that our death will make a noise — and perhaps be postponed.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...VoxPopuli.html

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 11th, 2008 at 10:07 PM.
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #5
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

No wonder the readership is taking a dive. People can only swallow so much bullshit.
__________________
Itís time to stop being Americans. Itís time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #6
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,112
notmenomore
Default

Thanks for the post of these two great columns, Alex. Chis Donovan will definitely go in my mental file as a "must-read" commentator: excellent writer and an intellect to spar easily with the juden who won't allow a voice of this timbre.

I guess it's been at least fifty or sixty years ago that Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes penned his first articles on "the historical blackout." Barnes's focus was primarily on the refusal of publishers or scholarly journals to deal with historical or political analysis that failed to live up to their tender leftist expectations. Today. Donovan details the quantum move forward of the blackout that now includes any racially conscious material on any subject if the subject concerns or involves Whites. Whites have been marked for extermination; they no longer exist except as buffoons and foils to be played off by the always meritorious "people of colour."

Perhaps the one note of hope in Donovan's otherwise all too accurate and dreary assessment of today's "journalism" is his concluding line:

"For the Times to voluntarily reach out like this, something incredible would have to happen. Itís more likely to be forced along by overwhelming current events. The question is, how much longer can it keep whites as a group at bay?"

Those events may well be nearing.

For example, the incredible "last gasp" effort, made today by the Federal Reserve Bank in concert with a number of other international central banks, whereby the general fiat currencies are to be summarily inflated by an amount equal to the estimated total of the bad debt held by the totality of the banking industry, appears at first glance to have succeeded in tricking Wall Street into belief that "peace is at hand." Perhaps,once again, the central bankers will foist yet another degree of slavery upon the slaves of their global plantation. Perhaps, once again, the worker bees will shoulder the load and happily pay off the billionaire's bad debts through the sacrifice of their own children. But perhaps not.

As none other than George Soros has observed, a fundamental aspect of the current business collapse is the use of outdated business models to support new financial products that in fact do not comport with the models chosen to support them. If the credit crunch and financial collapse are to be remedied by the infusion of a few trillions of inflated FRNs, the treatment can only be hoped to succeed if the banks in fact can get the "funds" loaned out into circulation. Now this may work, but the banks face a formidable problem: most potential "customers" for their new loans are now the same deadbeats who have effectively bankrupted them in the first place. Should the banks in fact continue to pour "funds" into the gaping maw of insolvency, it will become quickly apparent that the only source of actual "money" to accomodate this farce is the productivity of the workers - workers who actually produce. All this assumes that the Fed's new ploy will succeed.

IMHO "success" (ala' the 400+ point run-up in the DJIA this afternoon) must be very shortlived. The results of "not-success", eg. failure, will be even more readily apparent.

Then we can look for Mr. Donovan's "overwhelming current events" to move to the fore. And what will the NYT do then?
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The New York Times Magazine: A Conversation Among Us Jews

By Christopher Donovan

October 8, 2007

The New York Times Magazine, the New York Times’ Sunday slick-page offering, is easily one of the higher-quality publications in America, with in-depth treatments of cutting-edge issues in medicine, science, foreign policy, politics and our sociological landscape. But as with much of America’s elite media, there is a disproportionate representation of the Jewish community, its interests and organizations. This is best illustrated by focusing not on a single story, but an entire recent issue:

From start to finish, the August 12, 2007 issue is revealing. Two of eight letters to the editor come from Laura Winkler Stein of New Jersey and Marc Rosenblatt of Brooklyn — a comparatively low number compared to past letters pages, some of which have featured two letters from writers both named “Cohen,” for instance.

In the “Questions For” feature at the beginning of the magazine by Deborah Solomon, actor Jonah Hill of the new Superbad movie, tells Ms. Solomon, “I’m a nice Jewish boy.” His bar mitvah, he relates, was “amazing” and “magical” and carried the theme “Jonah Goes Platinum.”

Prominent neocon William Safire delivers his by-now familiar “On Language” column, which critiques the intricacies of the English language.

In “The Ethicist” feature, we hear from “ethics expert” Randy Cohen, a former comedy writer, who finds it relevant to work in a reference to American slavery in his answer to a question from an American upset about Singaporean justice. Cohen in the past has enjoyed lecturing readers about the evils of “racism,” though I have not yet seen him address the ethics of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The cover piece, on marriage counseling, is penned by one Laurie Abraham, and writer Joshua Yaffa gives an interesting article on the clarity of road signs. In what even many Jews might chuckle at for approaching parody, Paul Greenberg tells us about Alaskan salmon fishing.

The magazine’s last-page feature, “Lives”, gives us a cozy tale by Joel Schwartzberg about moving back home at age 37. It’s heavy on his Jewish identity and warm anecdotes of the Jewish family.

“So what?” you might say. Jews are smart folks and good writers. It’s no surprise they’d are disproportionately represented, especially in a New York City paper. How many whites from Iowa read The New York Times Magazine, much less write letters to its editor?

Yet it matters, on at least two levels. On one, it’s a simple sign of cultural displacement. The Saturday Evening Post, with its own reflection of white majority mores, has long been replaced. The loss of this voice, this presence, is itself significant, in the same way that many Jews find an abandoned synagogue in Poland to be significant. Yes — you see there? Our people used to be here. And now we are not. The difference is that Jews ask themselves, “and shouldn’t we return?” Whites have not, in the main, stopped to even ponder their own displacement, much less consider its implications or focus their minds on coming back.

So it’s worth pointing out that The New York Times Magazine, a part of the nation’s “newspaper of record”, has today become a virtual closed conversation among Jews on Jewish interests. The thoughts, feelings, desires and dislikes of the American majority have been “disappeared”, which is perhaps worse than mocked or pilloried.

On another level, predominant media influence matters because media influences policy. How shall we approach illegal immigration, foreign policy? The preferences of major Jewish organizations on these issues are well-known, and not coincidentally, have, for the most part, been enacted. Yet the Jewish preferences are often not those of white Americans, as can be seen from numerous public opinion surveys. Mass illegal immigration is not the preference of American whites. Our policy toward Israel and the Middle East also cries out for re-examination if the United States is to extricate itself from the current morass. So again, it matters.

The predominant influence of Jewish interests in the media simply does not represent the interests of the American majority. Facing this reality is a necessary first step.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...novan-NYT.html
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Top of the Masthead:

How To Handle Walt and Mearsheimer


By Christopher Donovan

October 16, 2006

In 2003, when The New York Times found it necessary to address the issue of Jewish prompting for the war in Iraq, no less than the Editor — that's the No. 1, capital "E" editor — wrote the piece himself.

Said Bill Keller, the belief the the war is for Israel is "simple-minded and offensive". But wrong? The article had enough concessions, though, that it's easy to imagine the angry phone calls that would have poured in — and been heard — had anyone under Keller penned the piece. Here, a demand to speak to the highest authority in the newsroom would have had the caller patched through to the writer himself — thus defusing the bomb.

Anyone looking for an indication of the gravity of having the editor write about an issue should check to see how many times, since his ascension to the spot, Mr. Keller has done so.

This pattern repeated itself in September of this year, when New Yorker editor David Remnick, who is Jewish, stepped in to discuss Walt and Mearshimer for "Talk of the Town."

Remnick's approach is like Keller's: concede the "grain of truth" to the allegation of Jewish control over foreign policy, but dismiss it otherwise as an oversimplification (Using a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinksi, Remnick compares the Israel lobby to the Armenian, Greek and Taiwanese-American lobbies). And make sure to distance yourself from shrieks of anti-Semitism, which are just as much of an oversimplification.

But both editors, of course, ultimately dodge the issue. With the evidence stacked so high, they best they can do is to tell us that the issue is really more complicated than that. This rhetorical technique is easily manipulated: Matters are "complicated" when the obvious point makes Jews look bad, but very simple when the obvious point makes them look good — or white gentiles bad. You will never hear Keller or Remnick argue that the Third Reich or apartheid South Africa was "complicated," for instance.

Both the weakness of their retorts — and the positions of the writers — are yet another insight into the undeniable power of Jews over the direction of America.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...-Masthead.html
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

By Christopher Donovan

Climbing Jacob’s Ladder: A White New York Times Editor Converts to Judaism

Just how powerful is Jewish influence over the prestige media in America? So powerful, non-Jews are willing to sell their souls — literally, if selling a soul can be literal — to prove their fealty to Jewish power and achieve journalistic success. Consider the revealing essay of Dana Jennings, a New York Times editor, appearing below an illustration of a baseball hat reading "My Other Hat is a Yarmulke" in the "Week in Review" section on Sunday.

Jennings, born Protestant in New Hampshire, describes a conversion that came about because of his Jewish wife and interest in the supposedly more open-minded religion of Judaism. The marriage happened in 1981, and the conversion, not until 2004. Along the way, "I sought, and found, solace, refuge and a way of being in the Judaism of my wife and sons ... found a depth that had been missing from the religion of my childhood."

Jennings amazingly claims his conversion "isn’t much different from other American journeys to a new faith — whether it be from megachurch to Zen monastery, or from mosque to the Cross."

Jennings is deluded. It is impossible to observe the saturation of big media, especially the New York Times, with Jewish reporters, editors, owners, columnists and opinion writers, and come away with the conclusion a non-Jew journalist’s conversion was a simple matter of "yearning for a different faith." A very convenient yearning, as it happens.

Imagine, for instance, a Times staffer’s conversion to fundamentalist Christianity. How often do you think that’s happened? And what do you think the reaction would be?

Right. Horror-stricken faces, uncomfortable silence, snickers and whispers. I can even imagine a confrontation over the matter, after a few drinks at a party.

But Judaism? Think of all the new opportunities for warm chit-chat Jennings now has with the Jews of the New York Times, as well as the power elite in his New Jersey suburb and synagogue.

Years ago, while working at the Philadelphia Inquirer as a cub reporter, I watched as one white gentile reporter, a woman, married a Jewish man, and considered conversion. Another white gentile reporter, also a woman, had already done so, and was buried in the conversion classes.

A third reporter, a Jewish woman, proudly told us that she was reclaiming her Jewish surname after it had been Anglicanized for a generation by her father. I suppose this was meant to demonstrate heroism and ethnic authenticity, but given that the paper’s top editor was Jewish and there were Jews in "power positions" all throughout the paper, it looks in retrospect more opportunistic than heroic.

The point is that Mr. Jennings is hardly unique. A full investigation would probably reveal many other instances of white (or even black and Hispanic) journalists converting to Judaism, marrying Jews, adopting Jewish goals and values, taking care to focus on Jewish cares and concerns, and so on. (As I’ve written in the past, journalism in America — the New York Times being a good example — is overloaded with stories by, for and about Jews and their concerns.)

I might also note that converting to the religion practiced by the power elite in any society is not unique. Once upon a time in America, you might have had conversions to Christianity for the same reasons. (One of my ancestors converted from Quakerism to Episcopalianism to better maneuver socially on the Upper East Side.) But today’s conversions — to Judaism — show you who holds the power now.

(For an interesting gauge along these lines, try reading the New York Times wedding announcements some time, and tally the percentage of ceremonies performed by a rabbi.)

What is surprising, however, is that a journalist as clever as Mr. Jennings would trumpet his awkward attempt to join the Jews and not see how transparent his motivations are. I can even imagine Jews themselves laughing about a line like this: "We Jews speak of the ancient sages Hillel and Rabbi Akiva as if we just had an expresso with them at Starbucks." [I don't get this last.]

But we should thank Mr. Jennings for his revelations. We now have one more explanation for why big media treats Jews as the center of the universe, and whites as non-existent. The producers of that media themselves — even if white — strive to shed their own white existence and adopt a Jewish one.

None of this, of course, makes for "spiritual enrichment." It’s craven, unprincipled and pathetic, and it hastens both the spiritual — and perhaps literal — death of whites. The conversions we really need are to a healthy and self-affirming white group consciousness.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...-Jennings.html


Links in article:

My Other Hat is a Yarmulke
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/we...9b2&ei=5087%0A

 
Old December 26th, 2008 #10
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,704
Horseman
Default

Back in the 40's, the NYT reported stories of the holohoax. For example, a headline "400,000 jews have just been killed in Hungary." And it was a small article on perhaps page 20 or so. If this was true, why would it be buried like that, and so understated?
 
Old December 26th, 2008 #11
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman View Post
Back in the 40's, the NYT reported stories of the holohoax. For example, a headline "400,000 jews have just been killed in Hungary." And it was a small article on perhaps page 20 or so. If this was true, why would it be buried like that, and so understated?
I sure wish they would bury that sarah jessica parker face.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old January 2nd, 2009 #12
Vanguard Reb
Richard Wagner Fan
 
Vanguard Reb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hint: It used to be the world's greatest nation
Posts: 111
Vanguard Reb
Default

In today's Hymietown Times, we have a story about G.I.'s from Fort Carson, Colorado who have been accused of violent crimes since returning from Iraq.
Nine current or former members of Fort Carsonís Fourth Brigade Combat Team have killed someone or were charged with killings in the last three years after returning from Iraq. Five of the slayings took place last year alone.
Apparently two of these nine were white men accused of killing 'women of color'. So guess whose photos the Times selects to illustrate its article, along with photos of their victims? You guessed right. And no one else was depicted, as their stories don't advance the cause, you see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/us...pagewanted=all
__________________
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten." --Seneca
 
Old May 13th, 2009 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Pervert Jew David Geffen to Make NYT Non-Profit


All the News That's Fit to Buy

Inside David Geffen's play for The New York Times.
Johnnie L. Roberts
Newsweek Web Exclusive

At 66, David Geffen has amassed a fortune that Forbes estimates at $4.5 billion in its annual list of the global megawealthy. The Hollywood impresario, one of the world's most prescient investors, has scored mammoth returns in art and hedge funds, having cashed out of the financial and art markets well ahead of the crashes. But the foundation of Geffen's wealth—and his first love—remains the media industry, where his touch has been consistently golden, managing and producing legendary music acts such as Joni Mitchell and the Eagles and to helping launch DreamWorks.

So why is Geffen, having already sought unsuccessfully to acquire the Los Angeles Times and now reportedly eyeing The New York Times, so keen on stuffing his portfolio with an investment that seems dead on arrival—newspapers? Geffen declined to publicly comment on media reports that he recently tried to acquire a large stake in the financially distressed New York Times Co., parent of the storied newspaper. But two people familiar with Geffen's thinking say the answer is simple: an acquisition of the Times wouldn't be a financial investment. If Geffen were successful in landing The New York Times, said one of the confidantes, he'd convert it into a nonprofit institution. He would regard the newspaper, perhaps the world's most influential journalistic enterprise, as a national treasure meriting preservation into perpetuity. His model would be the ownership structure of Florida's St. Petersburg Times, which is controlled by a nonprofit educational institution, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "David would hope the newspaper makes a profit," said the confidante. "But he believes that operating without the ultimate responsibility of paying dividends or necessarily having to be profitable is the best way to run an institution like The New York Times."

The Geffen sources NEWSWEEK spoke to are knowledgeable about his investment decisions and specifically about his overture to acquire a Times stake, but they declined to be identified. "The New York Times is a very special institution," said one of the persons. "It's essential to be preserved. And David believes the correct model to preserve it is nonprofit."

Like the rest of the newspaper industry, the company is besieged by financial, technological and consumer trends that imperil its future. Readers and advertisers are abandoning print for online news outlets, including the official sites of newspapers like NYTimes.com, where content is almost universally free to readers. Newspapers "have the possibility of going to unending losses," legendary investor Warren Buffett said recently. "We would not buy them at any price."

The New York Times Co. has been in virtual crisis mode for months, with precipitous declines in advertising and circulation and the burden with massive amounts of debt. The parent company has been so concerned about its plight that, independent of Geffen, it also recently considered converting to nonprofit status. "But the option is more complicated than it might seem at first blush," Scott Heekin-Canedy, president and general manager, said last week in answer to a reader's online query. "For a host of reasons we have ruled this out for the present." Heekin-Canedy didn't elaborate, however. "These were proprietary internal discussions," a company spokeswoman subsequently told NEWSWEEK, declining further comment.

The fact that Geffen isn't looking at the Times as a classic investment suggests that he would have approached the publishing company's management, including Arthur Sulzberger Jr., about his intentions. Sulzberger is chairman of the company, but more importantly the leading member of the Sulzberger-Ochs family, which has controlled the publishing company for 113 years. Citing unnamed sources, Fortune magazine first reported that Geffen sought unsuccessfully to acquire the nearly 20 percent stake of the New York Times Co. owned by Harbinger Capital Partners, a hedge fund that first invested in the publishing company on a hostile basis. For now, Geffen apparently has ended discussions with Harbinger, though he is said to remain interested in pursuing the Times.

It's unclear how Geffen would implement the nonprofit structure were he to gain control of the paper. In March, Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland introduced legislation to facilitate a newspaper's conversion to nonprofit status. The Geffen sources told NEWSWEEK that he envisions himself as the next Nelson Poynter, the late proprietor of the St. Petersburg Times and a legend in journalistic circles for his fierce independence. The Florida newspaper (where this reporter began his career) is the widely recognized prototype of the nonprofit structure that is now generating growing interest in some quarters of an industry facing an existential crisis. Poynter, who died in 1978, willed his control to the nonprofit and highly influential Poynter Institute, viewing the mechanism as the optimal way of preserving the St. Petersburg Times' independence and local ownership. Today, under the complex ownership structure, the St. Petersburg Times operates in many respects like a for-profit newspaper. One of the nation's great daily reports, it snared two Pulitzer Prizes last month. Only The New York Times, with five, was awarded more.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/196997
 
Old May 13th, 2009 #14
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

Hell, I could probably afford to the buy the New York Times at this point.
 
Old May 26th, 2009 #15
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Tom McReen
Default NYT missed Watergate scoop

Quote:
Two former New York Times journalists have admitted that they let slip one of the biggest stories of all time - the Watergate scandal.

They knew first that senior government figures - including President Richard Nixon - were involved.

Robert Smith told his editor, Robert Phelps, but the story was dropped.

The scoop was left to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post, whose investigation was made into the film All the President's Men.

The story began on 17 June, 1972, when a group of men were caught breaking into the Watergate complex in Washington DC. They were attempting to plant listening devices in the offices of the Democratic National Committee.

Robert Smith says that two months later - on his last day at the New York Times - he had lunch with the acting director of the FBI, L Patrick Gray.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Smith recounts how Mr Gray began divulging details of the Watergate break-in, a range of other illegal political activity, and the Nixon administration's attempts to cover it up.

Mr Gray said that those involved included the former Attorney General John Mitchell and Donald Segretti, who were helping to run President Nixon's re-election campaign. Both were eventually sent to jail.

But Mr Smith wanted more.

"I said: 'Does it go higher?' And he looked and me, and I said: 'Well, the President?,' in some disbelief.

"And he just looked me in the eyes, I looked him in the eyes, and in my world of journalism, that was confirmation."

He rushed back to the New York Times' Washington bureau, and told all to his editor, Robert Phelps.

The next day Mr Smith left the newspaper for a course at Yale Law School.

"I continued to read the newspaper and I did not see the story. I could only assume that the Times had found the story not to be true," he said.

Mr Phelps confirms Mr Smith's account of events in his newly-published memoirs God and the Editor: My Search for Meaning at The New York Times.

Now aged 89, he says he cannot remember why the hot tip was not followed up. A week after his conversation with Mr Smith in 1972, he went away on a month's holiday.

It was left to Mr Woodward and Mr Bernstein, at the rival Washington Post, to win fame and fortune with their Watergate investigation. Their source, "Deep Throat", was later revealed to be Mark Felt, Patrick Gray's deputy at the FBI.

Their dogged determination traced the scandal right up to the White House. President Nixon resigned in disgrace in August 1974.

Mr Smith, now a lawyer in San Francisco, is sanguine about Mr Woodward and Mr Bernstein's success.

"They completely deserve it. They are entirely entitled to the wonderful fruits of their excellent efforts," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8067842.stm
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old June 12th, 2009 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Daily Show Visits the New York Times, Purveyors of 'Aged News'

In what might be the most painfully funny Daily Show skit ever produced, Jason Jones visited the New York Times building in Midtown and interviewed some of the paper's staff, quite uncomfortably.

The slant of the Daily Show's skit was that the paper is sad old relic from a bygone era, or a "walking Colonial Williamsburg" as Jones put it, and he basically breezes around the place making fun of everyone and everything for being old and outdated and on the verge of death, culminating in interviews with executive editor Bill Keller and assistant managing editor Rick Berke.

It's to Berke that Jones poses the question, "Why is aged news better than real news?" When Berke contends that the Times doesn't sell "aged news" Jones counters by pointing to a copy of the paper and asks, "Show me one thing in there that happened today." Berke then spends the next few seconds looking utterly befuddled while trying to come up with an answer.

But it's Jones' sit-down interview with Keller that was the most wince-inducing part of the whole thing. Jones queries Keller about the paper's revenue stream, asking "Does it make Huffington Post money?" Keller responds by saying he doesn't know how much money HuffPo makes, but then adds, "The last time I was in Baghdad I didn't see a Huffington Post bureau or a Google bureau or a Drudge Report bureau...it's a lot easier to stay home and riff on the work that somebody else does." Jones' nodding response—"Much easier and more fun to read."

And finally Jones tells Keller an old newspaper joke with a twist in the punchline: "What's black and white and read all over?...Your balance sheets." Keller laughs but squirms around in his seat quite a bit, and we were squirming right with him the whole time.

http://gawker.com/5286813/the-daily-...s-of-aged-news
 
Old June 12th, 2009 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Comedy Central piece mocking NYT

http://www.hulu.com/embed/2Pdcv5dybjTfDD5vE7efYg
 
Old November 13th, 2010 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Here's an absolute classic piece of lying ideological claptrap, as the NYT yids baldly pretend that the racial IQ gap is a function of parenting or some other social engineering rather than biology. Again, the key here is not that the NYT is wrong, it is that the jews publishing this bilge are very deliberately lying about the basis of the race gap in school performance (and everything else).]


Proficiency of Black Students Is Found to Be Far Lower Than Expected
[keepin' it real, style: Stupid Niggers - New, Old, and Middle-aged Evidence Shows Nature Made Them That Way]

By TRIP GABRIEL
Published: November 9, 2010

An achievement gap separating black from white students has long been documented — a social [keepin' it real: biological] divide extremely vexing to policy makers and the target of one blast of school reform after another.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/education/09gap.html
 
Old April 23rd, 2013 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

staff hates jew Jill Abramson
http://gawker.com/all-is-not-well-at...imes-478950650
 
Old August 5th, 2013 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

NYT sells Boston Globe to John Henry

Why Didn't the Boston Globe Sell to the Highest Bidder?

This weekend, The New York Times Co. sold the Boston Globe to John W. Henry, the owner of the Boston Red Sox. Henry paid $70 million. (Or negative $40 million, by more realistic calculations.) Oddly, several other bidders made higher bids than Henry. Why did the NYT Co. leave that money on the table?

http://gawker.com/why-didnt-the-bost...der-1032049882
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 PM.
Page generated in 0.19908 seconds.