If There Was EVER ANY DOUBT About The Loyalt Of The NYT

[Beetwasher]

Let it now be put to rest. They will bend over backwards to support the Republicans.

Who the fuck writes their headlines????? This really, really pisses me off:

Senate Narrowly Backs Bush in Rejecting Debate on Increasing Time Between Deployments

WASHINGTON, July 11 — A solid majority of the Senate’s Republicans stood by President Bush’s Iraq policy on Wednesday and blocked consideration of a plan to give American troops more time between combat tours. But Democrats drew fresh Republican support for other proposals as they vigorously pushed to change the administration’s war strategy.

--snip--

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/world/middleeast/12cong.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin

There are so many things wrong w/ that headline I don't even know where to begin.

FUCK YOU NYT!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Not The Greatest Headline Ever, But...

In general, I think they are very well behaved.

Remember, the Times was the paper that uncovered and published warrantless wiretapping - despite The Chimperor personally asking the publisher and managing editor not to, in an Oval Office meeting. Not a day goes by without a Times editorial shredding the President.

[Beetwasher]

2. Umm, I Guess You Don't Remember That They WITHHELD REPORTING THAT STORY

so as not to "affect the election". :eyes:

Yeah, "well behaved" indeed. They did such a good job on the runup to the Iraq war too. Puhhleeze, give me a fucking break. They may not be the worst of the bunch, but they do more than their share of water carrying. And they may be the most dangerous because of their perceived reputation as being "liberal" and therefore "trustworthy". They are no such thing, not anymore, not even close. They are not even nuetral anymore as the above headline clearly shows. They had to do some serious twisting of facts to come up w/ that headline to support the Repubs.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. "the paper that uncovered and published warrantless wiretapping"

sat on that story while Kerry was running for president.

[Beetwasher]

4. Exactly

Give me a fucking break. Who does this guy think he's kidding? He must think we don't pay attention. :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. He shows up now and then to make nice noises and hand out slurpies.

Everything is nice. We got nice democrats leading us around in circles, we got the nice neocon times nicely holding up total bullshit in one hand and actual facts in the other and saying: 'see there are two sides to the story', we got nothing but nice don't you know.

[Beetwasher]

11. Hey!

I want my slurpie! :evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

7. And they ignored OH.

It isn't a newspaper, it's a propaganda mill for multinational corporations.

[Marr]

10. Their handling of that story is one the biggest examples of their pro-GOP bias.

As mentioned already, they withheld reporting on that story because it might've had an impact on the outcome of the election. Apparently, little things like "reality" aren't supposed to influence elections. Who knew?

Also take a look at their handling of the 2000 election debacle- particularly in Florida. It was shameful. The NYT has backed the corporate agenda unflinchlingly. They just do it the old fashioned way: by omission.

[DangerDave921]

5. ?

What's wrong with the headline? I'm not seeing the problem.

Also, the NYT endorsed every single Dem candidate in 2006. Every single one. So how exactly are they bending over backward to support the Repubs?

[Beetwasher]

8. LOL!

If you don't see a problem, you ain't looking. :eyes:

The "Senate" did not back Bush. The REPUBS blocked a vote. The MAJORITY of Senators OPPOSED Bush on this. How is that narrowly supporting him? The headline makes it seem like the Senate (controlled by Dems) agreed w/ and backed Bush's positon on this issue. The truth is the exact opposite.

[DangerDave921]

14. I got it now.

Thanks

[AllegroRondo]

9. It should have read

"Senate Republicans block bill that gives troops more recovery time"

[ljm2002]

25. "Senate Republicans Filibuster Bill Supporting Troops"

That would be more to my liking. And more truthful.

[MnFats]

12. nor do I and I'm a journo. the times sometimes fucks up in a HUGE way. but..

...Judith Miller and other gargantuan errors....they're doing their job chronicling the misadventures, malice and aggression of this admiinistration....


a better example, and I'lll try to reproduce it here, was in their onliine edition the other day.

one page had bill and hillary working a crowd in an Iowa parade. She's got her arm outstretched, waving to people.
the ad next to it had this head: "Isn't it time you did something about excessive underarm sweat?" Nice, huh?

[Beetwasher]

13. Your A Journo And See No Problem W/ This Headline?

Did you read the story? The headline is essentially the exact opposite of what happened.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. My brother is an actual journalist as was my dad

and never once did either of them refer to themselves as a 'journo'.

[MnFats]

23. PM me. I'll give you my name and the website and my work email.

go to www.poynter.org
dig around a bit. you will see the term a lot.

[MnFats]

27. no? then just google 'newspaper journos' and see what you get.

[GeorgeGist]

20. Fat chance.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MnFats]

22. PM me. I'll give you my name and the website and my work email.

[valerief]

16. The NYT is the Republican's ball, so they call the shots in the Liberty Game.

BTW, it's totally fixed.

[BurtWorm]

17. How would you have written the headline?

Not that I disagree with you--at all!--but I wonder how it should have been written.

My gut reaction when I see a headline like that is to see the paper as taking Bush's side in the debate. I'd rather have seen it say something like "Bill to Make Troops' Active Duty and Leaves Equal in Length Narrowly Fails in Senate." Just take Bush the fuck out of the equation, where he belongs.

[Beetwasher]

18. From Reuters, Same Story

Source: Reuters
Senate Republicans block U.S. troop rest plan

That is an absolutely, 100%, no spin truth headline for this story.

The NYT performed gymnastics w/ their headline. From the headline it seems the Senate SUPPORTS Bush, when in fact the opposite is true. Indeed, not only does the Senate as a whole OPPOSE Bush on this, but a considerable (and relatively unprecendented) number of Repubs crossed the line to vote w/ the Dems and against Bush on this. The headline is misleading, and so is the story to some degree in that many Repubs broke ranks to oppose Bush. It is only through the extraordinary use of a fillibuster that Repubs were able to defeat this. It was NOT "The Senate" that backed Bush, but rather a SPLINTERED Republican minority that blocked this using a fillibuster.

From the NYT:

"As the White House lobbied Republicans on Capitol Hill for a second straight day, asking for patience, seven of the party’s senators — six of them facing re-election next year — broke ranks on a measure that would have effectively limited the number of troops deemed ready for deployment by guaranteeing them time off between deployments."

This in itself is an extraordinary story. SEVEN Repubs broke ranks to oppose Bush on this. This is worthy of it's OWN story. Bush's Republican support is COLLAPSING. And yet, the NYT by writing this leaves one w/ the impresison that the Repubs are UNITED SOLIDLY in their support of Bush:

"WASHINGTON, July 11 — A solid majority of the Senate’s Republicans stood by President Bush’s Iraq policy on Wednesday and blocked consideration of a plan to give American troops more time between combat tours."

[Nikki Stone1]

19. "Senate Republicans block U.S. troop rest plan"

Thanks for the proper headline. The NYT headline is not only difficult to parse but it is misleading as a result.

[BurtWorm]

21. Yeah! Reuters gets it!

:toast:

I think of Charlie Rose and the NY Times (outside the editorial page) as birds of a feather. They're like mini-Broders, conditioned to believe that all American politics is about "the President," and they're always on the lookout for infringements on "the President"'s imperatives.

[redacted]

29. Oh come on. No, Reuters DOES NOT get it!

Sorry Burt, but I and about 20 others here on DU take exception. See my post downthread. And check out my original post and thread from 4 days ago referenced there.

Any headline without the word FILIBUSTER is absolutely misleading. Rachel Maddow made a HUGE deal about this on her Air America program and she is absolutely 100 percent correct.

[CatWoman]

24. Hon,

the headlines are written by someone altogether different than the author of the story.

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

26. Oh, I Know That!

It's still infuriating! :hi:

[redacted]

28. HEY CORPORATE MEDIA: STOP SAYING "BLOCK," SAY "FILIBUSTER" INSTEAD

Let's be accurate about this. The Dems had 5 more votes than they needed to WIN. They eventually lost because the Republicans do what Democrats will not: they FILIBUSTERED this bill to shut it down.

Say the word. "Fil-i-bus-ter." And use it. Show everybody how unseemly and disgusting it is for the GOP to talk for hours to defeat a bill that would have provided much needed rest for troops on deployment tracks.

Tune in to Rachel Maddow's show on Air America, in process at posting time, for more about this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1307877