Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: [N.Y.]

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    abu afak


    Documenting and exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the NY Times.

  2. #2
    abu afak


    May 14, 2004 -- A MAN has his head cut off by al Qaeda in Iraq, and The New York Times aggressively markets the idea - on its front page yesterday - that his death is somehow the fault of the United States.
    (As I pointed out in Beheading string in the Photo section, The other Four Columns above the Fold were all devoted to the Prison abuse Scandal.. abu)

    "The family of Nicholas E. Berg challenged American military officials on Wednesday," according to lead paragraph in the Times' story, "insisting that the man beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Iraq had earlier been in the custody of federal officials who should have done more to protect him."

    Whatever the circumstances of Nick Berg's detention in Iraq and his family's torment at his unspeakable murder, the Times' decision to offer this angle as its main story in the matter of his beheading is a very telling fact about that newspaper, the mainstream media and the politics of 2004.

    No matter what happens in the war with Iraq, no matter what the evildoers do, the Times wants to bring it back to high-level American misconduct - misconduct so severe that it supposedly calls the entire mission in Iraq into question. To blame the United States for Berg's beheading might be acceptable for Berg's own grief-deranged kin. But it is not acceptable for The New York Times or anyone else.

    The Times is leading the mainstream media in turning the United States into the bad guys in Iraq. But it is far from alone.

    Take a look at Time magazine's cover this week. It features an artist's rendering of one of the photographs from Abu Ghraib with the line: "Iraq: How Did It Come to This?"

    "It" didn't come to "this." "It" is a war to liberate 25 million people and rout Islamic extremists, terrorists and those who thirst for the mass murder of Americans. "This" was an aberrancy that was stopped almost five months ago, when the revelations at Abu Ghraib led to investigations, arrests and the wholesale reinvention of the Iraq prison system.

    Time's cover line is a vile and grotesque slander against every American in uniform in Iraq. It remains the case, more than two weeks after the public exposure of the Abu Ghraib photographs, that not a single digital photo showing mistreatment has emerged from another cellblock at that self-same prison, or from any of the other 24 prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, every photograph shown to U.S. senators yesterday is part of the same set of pictures featuring the same eight dirtbags.

    The scandal isn't widening. If anything, it's contracting. The focus continues to zoom in on the actual people in the pictures and their disgusting conduct in them. And yet Teddy Kennedy, a man who once let a woman die, feels free to speak the following unspeakable words: "We now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."

    The United States is, according to the man in whose car Mary Jo Kopechne drowned, no better than the regime of Saddam Hussein.

    Teddy Kennedy isn't just some outlier. Teddy Kennedy is the chief surrogate of the Democratic candidate for president of the United States and a lionized figure - so lionized that a worshipful profile of him published in Boston magazine won a major journalism award last year.

    So let's be clear what's going on here. As we speak, 138,000 Americans are serving under dangerous conditions in Iraq. And our forces in Karbala are fighting against the goons and thugs of Muqtada al-Sadr with some success. They're risking their lives for freedom and honor and duty and love of country.

    And conventional liberal opinion wants them to lose.

    Conventional liberal opinion believes that the Abu Ghraib photos are the true meaning of the war, and that Nick Berg is just another victim of callous U.S. policy.

    Conventional liberal opinion is actively seeking the humiliation and defeat of the United States in Iraq.

  3. #3
    abu afak

    The Other Lame "Times" (L.A.)

    The Other Lame "Times"
    May 19, 2004

    If liberals won't move on from the prison abuse photos calculated to incite hatred toward the very troops liberals loudly claim to "support," I'm not moving on from the fact that the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, is instructing journalists on ethics. The editor of the Los Angeles Times telling reporters how to behave ethically is a complete contradiction, like ... oh, I don't know ... giving Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize or something. You know, just patently silly.

    This is the same L.A. Times that engaged in desperate, 11th-hour attempts to sabotage Arnold Schwarzenegger during the California recall election with lurid sex stories from anonymous assistant crudite girls who worked the craft services tables on Arnold's movies from the 1980s and were still trying to break into show biz 20 years later.

    This is the same L.A. Times where reporters had to be told in an internal memo (from Carroll himself) to stop injecting opinion in news stories, specifically the practice of prefacing the term "pro-life" with the term "so-called."

    This is the same L.A. Times that in recent years instituted racial and gender quotas for sources on "so-called" news – oops, I mean, news stories – which puts reporters in the position of having to round up a black expert on nuclear fusion, a Native American expert on cubism, and a female expert on great moments in football.

    This is the same L.A. Times that responded to the largest number of canceled subscriptions in the paper's history from readers enraged by the paper's liberal bias by putting Michael Kinsley, one of America's leading leftists, in charge of the editorial page.

    And this is the same L.A. Times that pays unrepentant Castro fan and former North Korea defender Robert Scheer for his hysterical anti-American rants every Tuesday, after hiring him mostly because his wife was on the editorial board.

    The title of Carroll's speech was "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." One has to admit: If you wanted an expert on the practice of partisan pseudo-journalism, you could do a lot worse than the editor of the Los Angeles Times.

    Alas, Carroll's speech wasn't the "how-to" lecture dozens of would-be yellow journalists were expecting when they showed up for his presentation. Like the "ombudsman" at the New York Times, Carroll chastised his own newspaper for some small, irrelevant infraction no one would ever complain about while ignoring the paper's consistent Soviet-style reporting that has led thousands of readers to cancel their subscriptions.

    Instead, Carroll's speech was an attack on Fox News Channel. If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Reader's Digest, NPR, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject.

    Carroll's case-in-chief of Fox News' "pseudo-journalism" is "The O'Reilly Factor." (Only liberals could force conservatives into defending Bill O'Reilly.) Carroll lyingly says of O'Reilly: "Where, he asked, was the L.A. Times on the so-called Troopergate story?"

    In fact, O'Reilly never mentioned "Troopergate." He didn't mention the Arkansas State Troopers. And he certainly didn't mention "so-called Troopergate." He compared the L.A. Times coverage of Schwarzenegger's alleged inappropriate behavior decades earlier with that paper's coverage of the scandals of various Democrats – among them the stunning, contemporaneous sexual assaults by Bill Clinton on identifiable women.

    I suppose it's easy to confuse sex scandals involving Bill Clinton – I keep a "Women Bill Clinton Has Raped or Groped at a Glance" file on my Blackberry, just as a time-saver – but O'Reilly was referring not to the 1993 allegations from Arkansas State Troopers, but to the 1998 Clinton sex scandals involving allegations from specific women, such as Kathleen Willey. We know this because while the word "trooper" never passed O'Reilly's lips, he did expressly refer to "Kathleen Willey."

    When it came to these Clinton sex assaults, how did the L.A. Times do? Reporter Richard A. Serrano described Willey as "embittered" and said her accusations were "fraught with contradiction" – unlike the truth-tellers who waited 20 years to make anonymous accusations against Schwarzenegger. The Times angrily editorialized that Clinton's impeachment was "grounded not in what is right for the country but what best helps House managers save face." (How anyone can use the expression "save face" in defense of Bill Clinton is beyond my understanding.)

    You don't have to enter the "No Spin Zone" to see the "disconnect," as liberals love to say, between the L.A. Times' frantic, wild-eyed search for a woman – any woman, even anonymously – to accuse Schwarzenegger of groping her at some point during the previous quarter century, and the Times' equally determined efforts to discount the many credible accounts of women, all named, who plausibly accused Bill Clinton of raping, groping or otherwise sexually assaulting them.

    But Carroll dearly wishes O'Reilly had said "Troopergate" because apparently that's the last time Carroll can remember the L.A. Times going after a Democrat the way the Times goes after Republicans as a matter of policy. The Times' Troopergate story came out in December 1993. But Carroll is still citing that one time over a decade ago when the L.A. Times engaged in nonpartisan reporting, bragging: "At one point, it had nine reporters in Little Rock." OK, but there were 24 reporters on the Schwarzenegger story.
    Last edited by abu afak; 06-19-2004 at 06:31 PM.

  4. #4
    i like the quotes page quotes on timeswatch

  5. #5
    abu afak
    The New York Times covers (and covers up for) Palestinian child bombers

    Hiding the problem won't make it go away.

    Why do Palestinian children become human bombs, willingly strapping on suicide belts and slipping into Israel to kill as many Jews as possible? That's the key question which the New York Times has once again failed to answer, this time in an otherwise informative story by Greg Myre ("Israel Says Children Enlist Children as Suicide Bombers", June 13, 2004).

    While Myre pulls no punches when it comes to telling readers how Palestinian children are now recruiting their classmates and cousins to become suicide bombers, he shies away from telling readers why Palestinian kids have taken up this grisly task.

    In Myre's rendition the child recruitment is a mystery -- he reports only that "some Palestinian leaders have condemned the use of teenagers, and opposition to the practice is widespread among ordinary Palestinians ..." Could the Palestinian kids have been indoctrinated in their schools? Myre casts doubt on this, reporting at face value the claims of one Palestinian school official that he tries to keep politics out of the classroom, "This place is for education and we don't want to talk about politics."

    Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being opposed to child suicide bombers, Palestinian society and Palestinian leaders revel in child "martyrdom," and the Palestinian media and schools do all they can to encourage a cult of death among children. The paramount Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, for example, stated in an interview on Palestinian TV that:

    ... this child who is grasping the stone, facing the tank, is it not the greatest message to the world when that hero becomes a shahid [martyr]? We are proud of them ... (PATV, Jan. 15, 2002 cited in Ask for Death, Palestinian Media Watch.)

    While Arafat's words certainly carry weight among Palestinian children, perhaps the most effective recruitment tool has been music videos which are broadcast for hours on end by official Palestinian television (there is no independent television under Arafat's rule). The videos are a call to death and martyrdom for Palestinian children, promising the glories and pleasures of heaven to the young "warriors for Allah":

    How sweet is the fragrance of the shahids, how sweet is the scent of the earth, its thirst quenched by the gush of blood flowing from the youthful body. (Quoted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in the Jerusalem Post, January 29, 2004)

    Another music video also aimed at children and broadcast repeatedly told young viewers that:

    Oh, young ones: Shake the earth, raise the stones.
    You will not be saved, O Zionist, from the volcano of my country's stones.
    You are the target of my eyes, I will even willingly fall as a shahid [martyr for Allah].
    Allahu akbar [god is great]! Oh, young ones!

    (Quoted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in the Jerusalem Post, June 2, 2004)

    Yet another music video shown repeatedly on Palestinian TV centered on a Palestinian child who had been killed at the start of the present violence in October 2000. A young actor portrays the child in paradise, flying a kite and running on the beach, and encouraging other Palestinian children to follow him in martyrdom, "I am waving to you not in parting, but to say, 'Follow me.' " (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in the National Post, April 8, 2004)

    As for the claim that Palestinian parents oppose such suicide bombings, news reports, including in the Times, indicate the opposite. For example, a few months ago Myre's colleague James Bennet reported that "Many Palestinian parents have praised their sons and daughters for carrying out suicide attacks, hailing them as heroes and martyrs." (New York Times, March 25, 2004)

    Palestinian support and encouragement for child suicide bombers is an ugly reality. The Times' reluctance to deal with this ugly reality will help only to perpetuate it.
    Last edited by abu afak; 06-19-2004 at 06:30 PM.

  6. #6
    abu afak
    More Hypocrisy From Sulzberger’s Times
    By Jason Maoz, Senior Editor

    The transformation of The New York Times is more or less complete. The newspaper long known for a liberal sensibility that sometimes bled from the editorials into the news stories has, over the past decade or so, essentially become the media auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

    Above all else, it’s the Times’s antipathy toward the Bush administration that is astonishing to behold — an attitude that has gone from a level of merely adversarial to one of institutional loathing; it has become a living, panting thing that permeates every section of the paper on any given day.

    The Times’s zeal for condemning Bush is so reflexive, so unthinking, that little things like consistency get lost in the shuffle. Judah Kraut, a doctoral student in Ancient Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, noted just such a lack of consistency last month on his “Sour Kraut” blog (, and it’s worth some consideration here.

    Kraut quotes from page 343 of the 9/11 Commission Report: “It is hard now to recapture the conventional wisdom before 9/11. For example, a New York Times article in April 1999 sought to debunk claims that bin Laden was a terrorist leader, with the headline ‘U.S. Hard Put to Find Proof Bin Laden Directed Attacks.’”

    Kraut notes: “The Commission’s reference to this headline is telling, but it does not adequately convey the depth of The New York Times’s downplaying of the terrorist threat posed by bin Laden. A more complete picture can be derived from the text of the article to which the headline was affixed. Two sentences in particular stand out: ‘In their war against Mr. bin Laden, American officials portray him as the world’s most dangerous terrorist. But reporters for The New York Times and the PBS program ‘Frontline,’ working in cooperation, have found him to be less a commander of terrorists than an inspiration for them.’”

    Kraut makes the point that “Some two-and-a-half years before bin Laden commanded the most horrific terrorist attack on U.S. soil, The New York Times ‘found him [bin Laden] to be less a commander of terrorists than an inspiration for them.’ To add insult to injury, we now know — from interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (p.149 in the Report) — that it was during this exact time period, ‘late 1998 or early 1999’ that ‘Bin Laden ... finally decided to give KSM the green light for the 9/11 operation.’”

    Kraut then moves in for the kill: “One would expect that the Times, having themselves been duped and having rejected the accurate portrait of bin Laden by ‘American officials’ as ‘the world’s most dangerous terrorist,’ would avoid assigning blame based on 20/20 hindsight — or, at the very least, would acknowledge that the paper, too, had fallen prey to the exact failures it so high-mindedly pointed out concerning the government’s pre-9/11 record.

    “Of course, the Times did the opposite. In a blistering editorial that appeared in May of 2002, the Times lamented — among other things — the mounting evidence of ‘monumental ineptitude and bureaucratic bumbling by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and other federal agencies...’

    “Throughout the piece, the Times editors are aghast at how badly the federal government was fooled. It was necessary to ‘determine why Washington failed to recognize that Osama bin Laden was on the hunt in America last summer.’ The paper’s view is adequately summed up (though less caustically) in the second paragraph of the editorial: ‘The entire national security and law enforcement apparatus under-estimated the possibility that the bin Laden network might strike targets in the United States, and various agencies either failed to detect or mishandled warning signs.’

    “Seriously. Where could they have gotten that idea that bin Laden wasn’t much of a terrorist threat?”

    Jason Maoz can be reached at

  7. #7


    Here's a really good site for anti-Israel bias @ the LA and NY Times as well as lottsa other neat stuff:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts