Layoffs At New York Times (NYT)

BTW, before I moved to Atlanta, the “darker people” had already taken it over. There’s a reason that truckers refer to I-285 circling Atlanta as the “ring around the Congo.”

Your new link again misses the point. The article you post is about an OP-ED, not news. If one wants to attack a newspaper for the opinions it allows to be printed on its op-ed page (by definition, opinions the newpaper does not endorse…that it may or may not agree with), well, it’s foolish, but OK. But articles printed on the op-ed page–no matter what the paper—have nothing to do with bias in the reporting of news.

Let me assure you, I can do any job that I set my mind to do and doesn’t involve low morals, as yours must. Obviously my genes are more favorable than yours.

My work doing taxes serves the nation and the taxpayers–and, they pay well for that. Your work apparently serves some fool who doesn’t mind wasting money.

Since you insist on calling names, you’re a crude, uneducated, infantile, pseudo-elitist whose only arguments consist of cursing at others rather than presenting logical and intelligent points. Sad.

- – -

Off topic: reg, where were you when the Mark-to-Model was being assessed and approved? Give me your thesis on this and I might waste more time with you. Until then, you’re a latecomer still harping on Enron and old news with no background on the subject.

Also, I have worked for KPMG and PwC, so I’ve been there and, beleive me, there is nothing so boring as to be forced to be so specialized that you do the same thing over and over and over and over — and you’re owned by the firm and have to put up with the politics. I’m happy, and that’s what’s important — not your approval.

But, guess what! I’m meeting with a manager from Ernst & Young tonight, because I do her tax returns! She could do it, someone in her firm could do it, but she and her husband know me and know that I’m good at this. If anything would be boring, it would be doing your 1040-A — if you make enough to require a return.

You might want to quit reading and responding to my comments, as you have sworn to do before, or you can continue and continue to look stupid with your lame attacks.

- – -

On topic: MC, sorry that I didn’t link all of the google entries about the NYT bias and how they want to be so politically correct that they can’t bring themselves to connect Islam and terrorism. I thought one might be enough, but you’re welcome to check other sources. Here’s another one for you to ignore.

Jewish World Review Dec. 3, 2008 / 6 Kislev 5769

Yes, the terrorists are winning
By Steven Emerson

This past Saturday, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece entitled “What They Hate about Mumbai,” focusing specifically on the free market sins of that great city. With contrived evenhandedness, the op-ed managed to blame both Hindus and Muslim extremists-without blaming either party in particular for the murderous attacks.

Without realizing it, the Grey Lady had hit upon a great travel series. In the best spirit of jihad for dummies, why not a year’s worth of op-eds focusing on “Why They Hate____” filled in, mad-libs style, with the U.S., Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Kenya, and the other 74 countries where radical Islam has reared its violent head? With only the moral blindness that the New York Times could capture, each op-ed would portray the attacks in a contrived even-handed way, without blaming, or even naming, the perpetrators of the attacks-Muslim jihadists.

Watching and reading reports of the Mumbai attacks was an Alice in Wonderland experience. Even after an Islamic terrorist group took credit, TV anchors and reporters assiduously avoided the term Islamic terrorist. They must have consulted with the Thesaurus for the Politically Correct to determine that the word “gunmen” would not offend any jihadist.

The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists.

…Our politically craven governments, followed in part by the media, have now started to ban the use of the term “Islamic terrorists” or “Islamic militants,” insisting that they simply be called “extremists” or militants. The government’s rationale was a page picked right out of the playbook of western radical Islamic strategy: Portray the use of the term “Islamic terrorist” as “racist” and as allegedly stigmatizing all Muslims.

It is time to stop caving in to the PC crowd. If we refuse to use the term Islamic terrorist, we conveniently take away any onus of responsibility for Islamic groups to halt the murderous ideology they propagate. In fact, in nearly EVERY claim of responsibility, which I studied, for hundreds of violent Islamic attacks which took place since 9/11, the common justification by the Muslim terrorist perpetrator was that there was a “war against Muslims” by the West and the Jews that had to be avenged. The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists. And no amount of territorial withdrawal or peace negotiations will assuage them.

But thankfully, there remains a glimmer of hope, and not from the condescending columnists of the New York Times or the State Department know-it-alls, but from courageous Muslim moderates in this country like Zuhdi Jasser or brutally honest Muslim columnists in the Middle East. While the West refuses to utter the term Islamic extremists and as a corollary holds no one responsible, at least one Muslim columnist has the guts to tell the truth of where the responsibility lies.

Even after the conviction of the defendants of all 108 counts in the Holy Land Foundation (Hamas) trial this past week, The New York Times poignantly focused its reporting not on the convictions for abetting terrorism and contributing to countless deaths of civilians, but on the tear jerking sobs of the wives and daughters of the convicted defendants who (surprise) claim their fathers were innocent. Now can you imagine the New York Times focusing its coverage sympathetically on the families of the convicted members of the KKK or neo-Nazis? Now further imagine reporters from the top newspapers getting their exclusive information for stories from un-indicted co-conspirators in the Hamas case.

It amazes me that you think that the adjectives male, uneducated, and Leo’s are just as important as the religious affilitation of the terrorists, which is their basis for their hate and murders.

Also, I might mention that we have a game called “Guess the Party,” whenever there is an article in the liberal media about a politician who is out of line. If the politician is a Republican, then that is clearly mentioned up front. If no party is mentioned, then it’s a Democrat. The party must be important to mention it sometimes, so why not all the time?

Off topic: Now, MC, on your other point about my ancestry, I don’t understand why you brought that up. Perhaps, you’re confusing my arguments with those of reg, which are based entirely on mud slinging. Nevertheless, here is some related information.

I am not originally from Georgia. My family did not settle in Georgia. My ancestors were among those who first came to America for religious freedom in the late 1600′s, and they were there at Valley Forge to make freedom possible for you.

On the idea of rejecting the U.S., the southern states were the ones being rejected by the rest of the union. Tariffs brought on by the populus northern states were enacted on products from the south so that the northern states could cut out the European market and get the goods cheaper. Oh, it didn’t matter to the northern consumers that those goods were made by slaves–just that they could get them more cheaply.

The southern states were not kept in a union by the Constitution but by force. From a legal standpoint, I think that every state which seceded was within its rights. I’m looking forward to the day that California, New York, and Massachuttes leave the union. and quit bankrupting the rest of the country with their programs.

How is that “refusal to recognize a connection?” NYT didn’t say “male bombers” or “uneducated bombers” or “bombers born under the sign of Leo.” That doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection or the paper doesn’t recognize one. A truly “fair and balanced” news source might well conclude that such a connection belongs on the editorial/op-ed pages, not in reportage.

In fact, your arguments and those to which you link demonstrate that the “boycotters” are not looking for fairness in reporting, but rather bias and opinion they agree with.

Finally, I do not “recognize” in my remarks concerning your posts that you are a white male who grew up in a state populated by the descendants of the exiled criminals who founded the state, who rejected the United States and tried to establish a renegade nation, and when that didn’t work, banned all descendants of African blood from drinking from the same drinking fountains as the favored white sons and daughters of aforementioned criminals and traitors.

Doesn’t mean it’s not so…doesn’t mean it escapes my attention.

Bottom line – You’re invariably the most tiresome, boring, ill-informed person in these comments. And you’ve got the morals of a slug – racist, bigoted and rather shockingly dishonest. But, of course, all of this begs the questions I’m sure most readers of this blog ask when you perennially get caught in your own bullshit – What else is new and who cares ?

You routinely cite Newsmax, Newsbusters and Worldnet Daily. You have no credibility accusing others of bias.

I have also had issues with the Times. Their former Rio corrspondent, Larry Rohter is an idiot. Maureen Dowd is nuts and over the years I’ve had numerous issues and criticisms on my blog with their coverage in Latin America and other areas. Even Roger Cohen, a columnist who I know casually, I have had issues with.

To both of you, since you didn’t address these points, I guess it’s perfectly okay that the NYT downplays terrorism and the Islamic connection and that the Democrats are proposing taxpayer life-support for papers that should die.

You’re assuming facts not in evidence. You look for validation and confirmation of your pov and that’s it.

- – -

And, reg, I did read the entire article. Next time, if you prefer, I’ll not choose one that gives both sides.

In any event, you typically pull out your phony elitist analysis and expose to me that you really don’t understand the depth of subjects–particularly those related to economics and accountng. That explains why you resort to calling me names rather than present a scholarly alternate position. On the other hand, any position opposite of mine cannot be scholarly.

Rather than reading the entire link from a Wharton School professor with many other credentials, you presented his attention-grabbing first line without presenting his explanation, which wasn’t wrong. Others can read beyond the first line and see why he is correct.

If you had taken debate in college, or even gone to college, you would have learned that slinging mud at the other side doesn’t win points from the judges. It’s easy to conclude that you have nothing of substance.

- – -

To both of you, since you didn’t address these points, I guess it’s perfectly okay that the NYT downplays terrorism and the Islamic connection and that the Democrats are proposing taxpayer life-support for papers that should die.

- – -

Well, I guess it’s that time of day to go upset some nigra homo. Oh, wait. I just did.

“Perhaps it comes back to envy and resentment. As much as the Times’s influence is dwindling, many smart alecks on the Web would kill to have a tiny fraction of the paper’s prestige and power, and they may think (erroneously, one suspects) that they could wield it better than the current occupants of Renzo Piano’s climber-friendly Eighth Avenue tower.

“Carr puts it this way, borrowing from Ralph Waldo Emerson: ‘The reflexive, baked-in desire to constantly take apart the Times is, I think, the hobgoblin of underemployed and understimulated minds.’ Not that there’s anything wrong with that…”

I am a critic of the Times in many respects, but not at the puerile level dishonestly pawned off here by resident moron. I have a funny feeling Woody didn’t read the whole article – sort of like the Telegraph piece he linked to the other day that completely refuted his idiotic assertion if you actually read the column to the end. We’re dealing with a very limited attention span here – I’d say about a third-grade level of comprehension, linked to the kind of rampant bitterness and blindered paranoia one finds only in a very calcified, very old “Dead Man Walking” cracker from the closed ranks of certain Deep South white reactionary enclaves.

Here’s an example from one of his links today:
“This column will explain why The New York Times has probably killed more people than Hitler.”

The resident moron isn’t just incredibly inept intellectually – he’s a moral cretin. Racist to the core and perched here – compulsively pounding away – solely to get attention due to some sever neurosis and to disrupt rational discourse.

Total fucking piece of shit. And that verdict is being kind…

He also is pissed at the Times because they wrote him an angry letter when he used their logo on his Newswer website.

Woody also elided this quote from another media critic in the article, Slate’s Jack Shafer:

Shafer, although he has written many articles taking the Times to task for its failures, disagrees. “I would tell the people [who say the Times is a lousy product] to go fucking soak their heads,” he says. “What newspaper do they think does a better job? If you go to the library and start cranking through the microfilm of 30-year-old New York Timeses, I think you’ll quickly realize that it’s a more lively, more intelligent newspaper than it was 30 years ago. And it wasn’t a bad paper then. Does the paper aggravate, does it contradict itself? Yeah, but it’s a huge, huge monster. It’s on practically every continent every day, and our expectations of The New York Times are huge, as they should be.”

Always best to show the whole picture.

V.F. columnist and veteran media-watcher Michael Wolff on the NYT: “Once, it mattered. Once, it set an agenda. But it’s like a time delay: We know you’re over with, but you don’t know it, and you’re still here, so die! Let’s not put a fine point on it. They don’t do anything right. Their journalism is not good, their view of the world is not correct.”

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

Cardin’s Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.

If this passes, newspapers will be as dead as passenger trains — like AMTRAK! In other words, they will survive at a high cost to the public and will live long beyond their usefulness.

- – -

Off topic: reg, where were you when the Mark-to-Model was being assessed and approved? Give me your thesis on this and I might waste more time with you. Until then, you’re a latecomer still harping on Enron and old news with no background on the subject.

Also, I have worked for KPMG and PwC, so I’ve been there and, beleive me, there is nothing so boring as to be forced to be so specialized that you do the same thing over and over and over and over — and you’re owned by the firm and have to put up with the politics. I’m happy, and that’s what’s important — not your approval.

But, guess what! I’m meeting with a manager from Ernst & Young tonight, because I do her tax returns! She could do it, someone in her firm could do it, but she and her husband know me and know that I’m good at this. If anything would be boring, it would be doing your 1040-A — if you make enough to require a return.

You might want to quit reading and responding to my comments, as you have sworn to do before, or you can continue and continue to look stupid with your lame attacks.

- – -

On topic: MC, sorry that I didn’t link all of the google entries about the NYT bias and how they want to be so politically correct that they can’t bring themselves to connect Islam and terrorism. I thought one might be enough, but you’re welcome to check other sources. Here’s another one for you to ignore.

Jewish World Review Dec. 3, 2008 / 6 Kislev 5769

Yes, the terrorists are winning
By Steven Emerson

This past Saturday, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece entitled “What They Hate about Mumbai,” focusing specifically on the free market sins of that great city. With contrived evenhandedness, the op-ed managed to blame both Hindus and Muslim extremists-without blaming either party in particular for the murderous attacks.

Without realizing it, the Grey Lady had hit upon a great travel series. In the best spirit of jihad for dummies, why not a year’s worth of op-eds focusing on “Why They Hate____” filled in, mad-libs style, with the U.S., Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Kenya, and the other 74 countries where radical Islam has reared its violent head? With only the moral blindness that the New York Times could capture, each op-ed would portray the attacks in a contrived even-handed way, without blaming, or even naming, the perpetrators of the attacks-Muslim jihadists.

Watching and reading reports of the Mumbai attacks was an Alice in Wonderland experience. Even after an Islamic terrorist group took credit, TV anchors and reporters assiduously avoided the term Islamic terrorist. They must have consulted with the Thesaurus for the Politically Correct to determine that the word “gunmen” would not offend any jihadist.

The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists.

…Our politically craven governments, followed in part by the media, have now started to ban the use of the term “Islamic terrorists” or “Islamic militants,” insisting that they simply be called “extremists” or militants. The government’s rationale was a page picked right out of the playbook of western radical Islamic strategy: Portray the use of the term “Islamic terrorist” as “racist” and as allegedly stigmatizing all Muslims.

It is time to stop caving in to the PC crowd. If we refuse to use the term Islamic terrorist, we conveniently take away any onus of responsibility for Islamic groups to halt the murderous ideology they propagate. In fact, in nearly EVERY claim of responsibility, which I studied, for hundreds of violent Islamic attacks which took place since 9/11, the common justification by the Muslim terrorist perpetrator was that there was a “war against Muslims” by the West and the Jews that had to be avenged. The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists. And no amount of territorial withdrawal or peace negotiations will assuage them.

But thankfully, there remains a glimmer of hope, and not from the condescending columnists of the New York Times or the State Department know-it-alls, but from courageous Muslim moderates in this country like Zuhdi Jasser or brutally honest Muslim columnists in the Middle East. While the West refuses to utter the term Islamic extremists and as a corollary holds no one responsible, at least one Muslim columnist has the guts to tell the truth of where the responsibility lies.

Even after the conviction of the defendants of all 108 counts in the Holy Land Foundation (Hamas) trial this past week, The New York Times poignantly focused its reporting not on the convictions for abetting terrorism and contributing to countless deaths of civilians, but on the tear jerking sobs of the wives and daughters of the convicted defendants who (surprise) claim their fathers were innocent. Now can you imagine the New York Times focusing its coverage sympathetically on the families of the convicted members of the KKK or neo-Nazis? Now further imagine reporters from the top newspapers getting their exclusive information for stories from un-indicted co-conspirators in the Hamas case.

It amazes me that you think that the adjectives male, uneducated, and Leo’s are just as important as the religious affilitation of the terrorists, which is their basis for their hate and murders.

Also, I might mention that we have a game called “Guess the Party,” whenever there is an article in the liberal media about a politician who is out of line. If the politician is a Republican, then that is clearly mentioned up front. If no party is mentioned, then it’s a Democrat. The party must be important to mention it sometimes, so why not all the time?

Off topic: Now, MC, on your other point about my ancestry, I don’t understand why you brought that up. Perhaps, you’re confusing my arguments with those of reg, which are based entirely on mud slinging. Nevertheless, here is some related information.

I am not originally from Georgia. My family did not settle in Georgia. My ancestors were among those who first came to America for religious freedom in the late 1600′s, and they were there at Valley Forge to make freedom possible for you.

On the idea of rejecting the U.S., the southern states were the ones being rejected by the rest of the union. Tariffs brought on by the populus northern states were enacted on products from the south so that the northern states could cut out the European market and get the goods cheaper. Oh, it didn’t matter to the northern consumers that those goods were made by slaves–just that they could get them more cheaply.

The southern states were not kept in a union by the Constitution but by force. From a legal standpoint, I think that every state which seceded was within its rights. I’m looking forward to the day that California, New York, and Massachuttes leave the union. and quit bankrupting the rest of the country with their programs.