I call you out, New York Times.

(DUers: I will email this thread to the Times, fyi.)


Mr. Sulzberger,

Last December, by your own Public Editor's admission, your readers wanted you to cover, if not investigate, our stolen Federal election. The NYTs said, there was no story there. I remember because I KEPT the letter that you sent us:

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:51:34 -0500
To: "Elizabeth Ferrari" <sfexpat2000@
From: "Public" <public@nytimes.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: Blackwell Locksout Certified Recount Volunteers on Fri 12/10

At 04:54 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:


Mr. Okrent

I personally think it's outrageous that the Times
failed to cover the Conyer's hearings.

And now, Mr. Blackwell is sabotaging the Ohio recount
in violation of OH state law.

Is the Times going to ignore this whole story? I'd
like to know so that I can reconsider my subscription
options. If the Times won't cover the news, I have to
find a paper that does.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Ferrari

San Francisco CA
* * *


Dear Ms. Ferrari,

In the first few weeks after the election several readers wrote us about this issue. Mr. Okrent responded to these concerns on his web journal. I include the entry below (see post #35).

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=36&fid=.f555e99/36

dokrent - 5:40 PM ET November 21, 2004 (#35 of 40)

The Times and Covering Allegations of Election Fraud

Sorry to have been neglecting this spot for so long; I could give you a list of excuses, but none of them
is especially good.

Now, though, my mailbox has begun to overflow with criticisms of The Times for not looking more deeply
into allegations of large-scale vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, a story (if true) that no one can ignore. In some
of these messages, writers say that "now that the theft of the election has been proven ...," The Times must
reveal this to the wider world.

Were the assertion even nearly so, I would do more than recommend that The Times reveal it ­ I’d be
demanding it publicly, loudly and frequently. But the evidence I have seen to date proves nothing, other than
that there was a certain amount of error in certain counties, and an aggressive effort by some partisans in
some areas to challenge some likely Democratic voters. To my knowledge, no one in the Kerry campaign’s
vast on-the-ground operation, or in its armies of well-situated lawyers, has made the argument that what
happened in Ohio (or Florida) could have changed the result of the election. Similar views were explained
in "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Buried," by Tom Zeller (Nov. 12).

And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed
be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the
paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if
they find something, they’ll publish it. A good investigative reporter (much less a whole staff of them) turning
away from a story like this one ­ if true ­ would be like a flower turning away from the sun. Careers are made
by stories that detail massive election fraud.

But: the operative words here are if true. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Although it would probably pain him to
have someone from The Times touting his work, David Corn of The Nation, in a recent column, offers plenty
of reason to examine the allegations before I, or anyone else, should leap to give them credence. You can
find Corn’s column here.

Since then, over seven hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. You may be interested in the following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html

I raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over.

The following articles have since appeared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

Mr. Okrent wanted me to write you back asking that you please stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

* * *

So, all the while the Times sat on the information that the NSA was illegally spying on American citizens, all the while you KNEW what this Administration was capable of, you tried to tell us there was "no story" in Ohio, no questions that should be raised about the integrity of our election?

What other attacks on our democracy are you enabling?

And why should any of us ever trust anything you print again?

I await your response.

Elizabeth Ferrari
San Francisco, California.

Let's hold our press responsible!!

process this assault on our democracy.

:kick:

They have a lot of cleaning up to do before they regain it.

:applause:

Then Judith Miller.

And now this?

New motto for the New York Times: All the News That's Fit to Print Remains Unprinted.

They squashed that story because it was too close to the election.

What else are they not telling us??

on another forum in the summer of 04 as well. Great Job!!!

:kick: :kick::kick: :kick::kick: :kick::kick: :kick::kick: :kick::kick: :kick::kick: :kick:

We CANNOT allow this to continue.

:kick:

Glad you are here. We need you.

:)

May this be the beginning of our media returning to the basics of journalism and of reporting the facts and uncovering corruption as they need to be reported.

chance?

Thanks,
Beth

I congratulated them on reporting on the wiretaps and respect them for that. One must wonder what would have happened if this infomration would have come out prior to election day? You could say it would have been a benefit to Kerry... but on the other hand, it was a stolen election so... would it have mattered.

I hope the NY Times will continue to report on the issues such as they did in regards to the wiretaps, but don't wait to inform the public! :-)

Dap

:kick:

uninformed, you're screwed.

Thanks for this sfexpat!

And I just want to cry, because there was this illusion, this ideal, that the NYTs gave us news, looked out for us as it were.

But, I'm not going to cry. I'm going to take it to these disrespectors of the American people, disrespectors of these United States, these people who have failed the public trust completely.

Thank you, Skinner, EarlG and Elad for giving us an alternative to abject betrayal.

:kick:

since they gained control over most crucial broadcast media in the mid90s.

They couldn't have impeached Clinton without controlling the media.

I'm glad they decided to finally release it, but they should apologize for sitting on it. Yet another case of the Times enabling criminal activities by the Regime.

:toast:

:kick:

So much for our most cherished institution.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Show us the truth! Rec'd!

:thumbsup:

if they realize they are just as responsible as Diebold for throwing the 'O4 election. They were up to their eyeballs in lies with fraulein Miller, and now you are willingly complicit in helping a dictator commit espionage on it's own peaceful citizens.

How many front page headlines are you going to give us now telling us you're sorry. I'd suggest they be for the next three months straight! And then start the call for resignation of the Fuhrer you aided and abetted.

I might forgive you for setting our country back 200 years.

Great letter!!

They are willing accomplices to deceit and deception by this administration. The DC press corps has been bought for the price of invitations to some very nice parties. They are selling out the future of this nation in order to say they went to a BBQ on the Crawford "ranch." They are attending black tie events with the officials they are supposed to be watchdog of, and thus playing nice-nice when it's time to do their job.

Let's inform them, their fig leaf has withered, rotted and doesn't cover the enormity of their disservice to the American people.

New York Times: you will never eat lunch in this town again.

:kick:

Mr. Sulzberger,

Last December, by you own Public Editor's admission...


Please keep us updated on the response!

edited for typo - lol!

:hi:

government. This type of paranoia eventually leads to neighbor spying on neighbor and soon children are encouraged to inform on their parents. What a dangerous journey we embark on if we chose this path.

Kick and recommend. And my thanks to you for this.

(I posted this gem earlier today at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=179864&mesg_id=179864 )

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-spy-story-five-ques_b_12382.html

Today the New York Times revealed that the Bush Administration used the NSA to spy on Americans and others in the U.S. If the facts as presented in the Times are true, this seems to have been a large-scale illegal operation. We'll be learning more about this operation in the days and weeks to come -- hopefully.


These lines from the Times piece are particularly interesting, however:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting.

Let's see, it's now December of 2005. So here are a few questions the Times should be prepared to answer:

Cont'd at link.....and see questions !
EDIT: fixed Huffpost link. Message that the post no longer exists?

:applause:

Just saw your pm; glad you did this.


Peace.

:hi:

I suspect my reputation as Resident PNAC Fanatic has earned me a place on the list but at least we'll have good company in Gitmo before they rendition us off to Siberia.

Keeping this kicked......

Are they about current questions swarming Diebold? I can't access them as I'm not a member.

If they're from Okrent's communications last year, should we provide current links to what's been
happening lately so evidence will be right there at their fingertips?

Just a thought..

They were links to articles dismissing concerns about the election.

I think I will let the Times put together their own defense, if such a gesture is still possible.

(Andy, you watchin' this?)

And Andy IS watching! :thumbsup:

We are their targeted market.

Oops!

((babylonsister))

I mean a reply.

And, I'll keep sending it out until somebody picks up on it. :)

Unbiased? ***** No!

Fool For A Scandal: How the 'Times' Got Whitewater Wrong

By Gene Lyons

Harper's Magazine

snip>

So how did we get here? Well, at the expense of shocking you, dear reader, it all began with the New York Times--specifically with a series of much-praised articles by investigative reporter Jeff Gerth: groundbreaking, exhaustively researched, but not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission to insinuate all manner of sin and skulduggery. Accompanied by a series of indignant editorials, Gerth's work helped create a full-scale media clamor last December for a special prosecutor. Testimony in recent Senate hearings showed that the Resolution Trust Corporation's Whitewater investigation began in direct response to the Times coverage; the hearings themselves resulted in large part from the Clinton Administration's panicky reaction to reporters' queries about the RTC probe, Gerth's among them. Absent the near-talismanic role of the New York Times in American journalism, the whole complex of allegations and suspicions subsumed under the word "Whitewater" might never have made it to the front page, much less come to dominate the national political dialogue for months at a time. It is all the more disturbing, then, that most of the insinuations in Gerth's reporting are either highly implausible or demonstrably false.


Let us return briefly to those thrilling days of yesteryear--specifically the 1992 primary season. On March 8, 1992, Jeff Gerth's initial story about Whitewater appeared on the Times front page under the headline CLINTONS JOINED S.&L. OPERATOR IN AN OZARK REAL-ESTATE VENTURE: More...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/whitewater/lyonsarticle.html

Getting it wrong in favor of the Bush Family seems to be the NYT modus operandi...

This is it! The NYTimes on its knees in front of that bush satyr and sukking for all their worth! yech but you know what i mean....
finally something the cud chewers can bestir themselves over! a BLOWJOB!

Good on you!

Peace.

I would be speechless if I had a "speechless" gear.

:hug:

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

the national treasury.

And, they have. They betrayed the public trust.

:nuke:

Your paper KNOWS what theses thugs are capable of and you let them get away with EVERYTHING!

None of us are happy to have to confront our "paper of record" on this.

Paper of record? That must be one WARPED record.

:nuke:

"Discovery Times" - where they keep the propaganda flowing, now polluting the airways with their lies!

And UP WITH THIS WE WILL NOT PUT.

((((((((DU))))))))

All the polls I've seen in months are 70/30 and it's not going to get better. this administration has lost all credible trust with the majority of the people. they better wake up and read the constitution. Peace

fire a few of their top idiots.

And, then, hire real journalists, and support true investigative journalism. It would be a refreshing change.

Yes!

:toast:

stay on them!

Thank you for your help.

:hug:

The mofo can't even speak English! And he writes for a living? (should be "are" not is."

Thank you for posting this.

When I mail this to the Times, I WANT THEM TO FEEL IT.

:toast:

Let's stick them the best we can!

"is" agrees with "none" which is singular, so his grammar is correct. "None is good." Not: "None are good."

sowwy

I too wrote you last November and December. I even phoned your NY and DC bureaus with information about the recount and the fact that local BOE's and the Triad company were interfering with that effort.

I received the same email response that you sent Ms. Ferrari. I found it insulting.

The NYT is still the best-written newspaper in the nation - by "best-written" I mean that your grammar and sentence structure are simply elegant.

You seem, however, to have lost your way in regards to the purpose of journalism. Do you remember that quote about the "Fourth Estate" -- did you learn about that in school? Maybe not. Our schools are failing us throughout the nation and, apparently, the NYT staff is no exception.

Remedial Journalism:
Project Censored < http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/ >

If my suggestion that you consult a website is motivating you to write another article about 'conspiracy theorists' on the internet, read this quote first please: "Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." Walter Cronkite.

Once there was a time in our nation when journalists assisted citizens in making sure that politicians were practicing thorough and ethical governance. Now, not only must citizens be watchdogs of government, now we must also be watchdogs of the press.

Our country is going to hell in a hand basket, and you, our nation's media, are carrying that hand basket.

I feel, right now, disgust. You lack courage. You have lost your moral compass.

To echo the concern that Ms. Ferrari expressed: What else are you lying to us about? What else are you holding back to prevent those in power from being 'embarrassed'? To protect yourselves from being call 'unpatriotic'? To protect yourselves from...?

Come clean. All of it. We call you out.

Is it too late for the Times?


:kick:

My friend whose life revolves around the Times says that LTTE's have to be sent by 10 or 11 AM - decisions are made by mid-afternoon about which will appear the next day.

public editor.

:toast:

You are right, though, if you want your LTTE to be considered, it needed to be sent in before 10 and it should be fewer than 100 words.

:toast:

:kick:

Our paper of record apparently thinks it's oh just fine to provide cover for the thwarters of our Constitution.

Where were you on election night 2004?

Where were you when Fallujah was razed?

Where were you when Mr. Conyers held his hearings?

Where were you when the Downing Street memo broke?

Where are you, period?

Clean up your act or rest in peace, New York Times.

When the keepers of the flame abandon there post, the flame will reach out. and I do mean this flame being freedom. Peace

I sent the NYT and several of their reporters info on PNAC that included snippets and links to other news media coverage to document the timeliness and veracity of this missing piece of the Big Picture and all I got was stony silence. Harumph! They just don't want to do their jobs any more even when the homework for a Big Story is dumped in their lap, gift-wrapped with a bow on top. Their cover-up of the Bush* Admin dirty dealings makes them complicit and tarnishes whatever tattered fragments of credibility that they still retain.

But hey, fraudulent elections and controlled mass media are components of Fascism but it's no big deal, right? That's what they want us to believe. Bastards!

Thank you for posting to the thread.

:hi:

They were asked to for reasons of national security, so what should they have done?

What would you say if you found out a news organization kept military plans they'd stumbled on secret? I use the analogy only as far as it's a news organization being told that information is vital to national security.

I congratulate and thank the NYT for having the courage and integrity to look at the issue and finally decide they can divulge the information and that the Bush admin is BS'ing them.

sitting on evidence that Mr. Bush was in violation of his oath of office?

"Courage and integrity"?!

:rofl:

They were asked to not publish for national security reasons.

You didn't answer my question, btw. It's pretty central to the debate we're having, so if you wish to retain the credibility you believe the NYT has lost I would humbly request that you answer it. Thx.

jeopardize by not spying on Quakers?

You must be joking. I hope you are joking.

The Bu$h administration used the NSA to spy on their political enemies under cover of "national security" concerns,

The New York Times aided and abetted them.

It's pretty simple.

I'm not talking about the specifics, I'm talking about a media organization being asked to not divulge information for national security reasons.

It matters not if it was "quakers" or "terrorists" or you yourself, the paper was asked to keep it secret. Many congressmen/women did the same without all the information because they were asked to because they're bound to secrecy on these matters.

And the claim that they "used the NSA to spy on their political enemies" is a new one. Is that your own supposition? Should I expect an answer to this given that you chose not to answer my last question?

Will you at least admit one simple fact: The NYT was asked to not divulge whatever they knew for national security reasons.
?????????????????

It's the media's job to REPORT! It's Fascist for the government to tell the media what it can or cannot cover. Period.

They didn't "tell" them anything, they asked them for reasons of national security.

I don't agree that this was a national security situation, but you get the idea. I'm sure you would agree that the media should cooperate with the request when it is indeed a matter of national security. Such a request is a serious one not to lightly be refused by the media.

ie. if a reporter is embedded he is asked/expected not to report information that could compromise the troops he's with. Is such a request "fascist" in your estimate?

Did it have anything to do with a book being released?

..without threatening national security.

Obviously you know something about a book release, so please do tell.

their subscription numbers - 12/2004 vs 12/2005. Also, have a couple of emails out to some reporter buddies. But, I don't have facts in hand yet. We will know, soon enough. It's an important question.

:hi:

You probably drank the kool-aid and actually believe the "Official" 911 fairy-tale story. If that's the case, you need to read PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons then get back to me.

Obsession with national security where fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses and control of mass media that includes censorship are components of Fascism. There's nothing honorable in contributing to the demise of our Democracy

But now the tables are turned. Following the story of the illegal spying (forget the "eavesdropping" euphemism, please), bush has lashed out and bitten the hand that has fed him so well for the past few years. The NYT has enabled him most significantly on election tampering, especially in Ohio, and other than Fox they were his biggest rah-rah cheerleader on the WMD debacle. But also remember that the NYT admitted to withholding the story of the bulge on bush's back because they thought it would affect the outcome of the election. The NYT, as well as bush, seems to enjoy playing God.

I certainly hope someone over there has decided to wake up and smell the coffee. Or maybe it's because the spores of Judy Miller's venomous breath have now left their atmosphere, they feel more free to print the truth. About damned time, but it's too late for the casualties which have resulted from their failure to hold this administration accountable for its arrogance. It makes me ill to think that at one time in my life my highest aspiration was to be a journalist. Thank goodness I never went down that godforsaken road of compromising with the devil.

Besides this being incredibly damaging to Bush, it has dwarfed all of the good news on the Iraq vote which Bush and his whores planned to crow about all day.

Seems to me some people would complain in the desert if brought a glass of water that it took too long.

:kick:

to who ever will listen.....

they may just have to listen.

:hug:

:kick:

He admitted to breaking the law - this one, is simple enough for even the red necks to understand.

I have a feeling his Administration is coming to an end, but the fight against the Elites (and the media NYT) will continue, the fight to keep democracy needs to be vigilant, the fight to keep the America we use to know is still in front of us.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Becky

:grouphug:

:hug:

But I remember how the Reagan administration broke the law by selling weapons to Iran, and then used the proceeds to fund right-wing insurgents in Nicaragua in their illegal war against the democratically elected government of that country. Sure, there were eventually hearings (the Tower Commission), and even indictments of Oliver North and John Poindexter for their roles in the scandal. But the convictions of both North and Poindexter were overturned on technicalities, Reagan made a pseudo-apology, and that was the end of that.

This is a violation of the Constitution - we allow this - it's all over

:toast:

That was your claim, made here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5629422&mesg_id=5630524

Will you or will you not back this up? Thx.

Why am I not surprised....

I'll kick it up.

But, I'll renew my subscription to the NYT and keep reading it.

Why?

Well, even though the editorial board has done some extraordinarily stupid things, like giving Judith Miller and Jayson Blair jobs, and paying David Brooks for a column, they still publish Frank Rich and Bob Herbert, and for that I'll forgive them a lot. The lead editorial today was superb, a clear indictment of the policies of this sitting resident of the White House. The NYT, despite all the ranting on this board, is still a very good newspaper - one that has oftentimes been supportive of progressive causes and candidates. We should not forget that.

Sure, give them a kick when they need it (and they need it fairly often) but send them some praise when they deserve it.

The newspapers in this country are not now, nor were they ever, particularly interested in doing much more than selling papers. Occasionally there will be one with a high standard of journalism - Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, NY Times - but they are few and far between. And sure, they'll ignore stories that we would like to see covered more and kept in the public eye, but they largely do a good job (Far better than any television station, far better than anyone on radio - except the BBC and CBC and sometimes NPR).

:hi:

and there are two newspapers, apart from the free weeklies, Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News - Both owned by (Dark) Knight-Ridder.

So, which paper do you suggest I read?

I mean I subscribe to The Nation and The New Yorker. I can't stand the WSJ. The WAPO is too much inside the Beltway for me. And NYT has Frank Rich, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd.

OK, I understand your frustration with the NYT, but didn't they just throw their hands in the air and say 'We messed up"? That's how I read it. Maybe I'm too forgiving. As I see it, it's necessary with newspapers to take the bad with the good. We have to keep them honest so they'll report honestly, but to say 'You screwed up, I've had it with you" when they are trying to do the right thing just doesn't do it for me. If it's a mechanic or an appliance, yes, I'm out of there, but I view newspapers a bit differently.

But hey, you're going to do what you think is best for you and what you think is going to move the world. So, go right ahead. By your lights you're right. Stop reading the NYT and don't continue to poke them when they need it. I'll continue to read it and poke them when I think they need it.

nearly half of our income turning news into comedy. We used to start the day with two papers, the Times being one of them. I stopped that paper on receipt of the letter in the OP.

We're a no paper family now, get our news on the net and have never been more current.

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5623344&mesg_id=5623344

I was pleased to see in today's printed LsTTE that a First Amendment Attorney called them out as well.

:toast:

corporate news monopolies, the NYT leading the pack--are responsible for this war as much as Bush is. And they're the ones who kept him in office, by failing to warn people about the election system and its egregious non-transparency (not to mention partisan ownership) and by doctoring their exit polls on election night to hide major evidence of a Kerry win from the American people. So one has to bring a healthy skepticism to the leader of the pack suddenly getting all huffy about our civil rights.

My suspicions: 1) The Bushites have something on the Times management (re Ms. Mata Hari's skulduggery, AIPAC/Franklin or other info involving crimes or treason) that would completely discredit them, and they are trying to forestall disclosure or mitigate disclosure by discrediting the Bush junta first and getting them impeached (who would believe their smear of the Times if they were in the dock?); and/or, 2) the Bush junta has outlived its usefulness; they were "the hammer" (completely unscrupulous about lying and war crimes) for getting the entire US military permanently installed in the Middle East; now they need a Democrat to competently administer and widen the war, to get a military Draft (which the Bushites can't do), to quiet things down a bit on the home front (until the Draft), and to prepare for "Gulf of Tonkin II," the invasion of Iran and Syria.

And they already have their candidate, Hillary Clinton. Do I despair? I do not. You know me. Never, never, never, never, never give up on your right to vote. NEVER! I think we might be able to get a quick, national solution on election reform, under Clinton II. I'll oppose her in the primaries, so she knows just how much this country has learned about NAFTA and GATT since last we saw the Clinton's, and how completely and totally we reject this war, but I'll back her to the hilt when she's shoved down our throats anyway, mainly because I think she will be unable to oppose transparent elections (being a supposed progressive) and we will be able to get it done. There is nothing we can do about the many things that ail this country without the right to vote. We MUST get it back.

I also don't like the precedent of Germany 1931-33, when the center/left fractured and was unable to govern, paving the way for Hitler. We are in serious danger of a Hitler arising within the next ten years or so, in my opinion. Some think the Bush junta IS Hitler, sort of collectively. I don't. I think they're just cold, calculating thieves, for the most part, upon which other thieves are also feeding. But they may be paving the way for something. ) (Put in a War Dem for four years; let the Dems take all the grief and rip themselves to shreds; then...with most of these new tyrannical powers still in place.....?)

The NYT can never regain credibility in my book, unless they were to change hands and management. They are worse than Bush, in that they are cleverer, more intelligent and fool more people. And they beat out even Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove and the lot of these gangsters for deceptiveness.

----------------------------

Let's keep our eyes open and our heads clear. Be smart; strategize on the basis of reality. And never, never, never, never, never give up on our right to vote. NEVER!

yadda, yadda, yadda. Then he sets a standard of whether or not it would change the outcome of the election. Bulshit. Either your interested in election fraud or you're not. Where is the screaming report about the GAO conclusions? What an asshat.

just like the NYT's editorial decisions, news side and editorial side.

Will it be bolded and large fonts like that to the NYTimes? I sure hope so!:)

And no one bothered you with "the four paragraph" limit for posting?

I guess if you chop it up in little pieces, it's OK.

Kudos. Rant away!

Making peace worldwide a priority in 2006!

Radio_Lady

They have blood on their hands. They fueled the flames for this war.

I also got a response from them re election fraud that was dismissive. Now we have Jeb in Fl thinking twice about the ability of the machines to be hacked. Where is the big expose?

If the public cannot get accurate news, if the press cannot watch out for the public and keep them informed, if they sit on a story about the govt spying on it's citizens, If we lose all trust in the media, then we are in real trouble as a nation.

They have the Times.

They need to be called out.

:kick::kick::kick:

I never cease to be amazed by your ongoing energy and determination to keep fighting.

Just wanted you to know you unknowingly inspire a lot of us to stay in this fight.

Well done, very inspiring and energizing! Thanks for calling them out!

:toast:

Support independent media--they got Iraq right!

and thanks for calling out the criminals!

I never thought I would eved defend the NYT - and this is not really a defense - they ARE criminals.
But Kerry gave carte blamche to the press, the Democrats and every coward in this country to cover up the election theft - so, much as it is indeed the press's duty to report the truth, the responsibility for this particular lie rests with the enabler at the top.


Also, while not excusing NYt for sitting on the spying story prior to the "election", I'll remind you that they are the ones that eventually reported it - at least before the Patriot Act became permanent.
I am just noting how BFEE manages to discredit - not Fox or Moonie Times, but the media outlets that still retain a modicum of integrity (as compared to the others) - CBS, NYT. Without defending their actions, I submit that our anger here is misdirected - we are taking the Kkkarl bait.
It's the action of spying itself as greenlighted by BFEE that should make us rage, not it's lack of coverage in the media.

to determine - nor was it the NYTs, for that matter. Reread the idiotic letter they sent us.

Also, when we approached them about the disgusting mess that was Ohio and about covering the Conyers hearings - they smirked and called us conspiracy theorists when they knew damn well that the Bush Administration believes rules are for the little people. Apparently, the NYT shares this ethic.

(Al Franken, Morning Sedition), and many Dems had the same attitude - and that doesn't make NYT right, but confirms my theory that it's Kerry's fault. (he allowed them to take the easy way out)

way to go!!!

:hi:

you go! :yourock: :headbang:

:headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause:

:silly:

:toast:

And, :toast: to DU.

wonder what they get in return

not that they ever had much to lose.

fact that BUSH WAS SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS since BEFORE the 2004 election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5648824

"And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if they find something, they’ll publish it."

-- Former Public Editor Okrent, Liar.