What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
104 Comments
- OriginalLucid1, on 01/26/2008, -9/+44I get a real kick out of the leftist suddenly discovering that the Clintons lie, and now the NYT makes stuff up! Hah! Welcome to the party people, we on the right have been here awhile.
- kolinkoolface2, on 01/26/2008, -6/+34hey new york times, how about you be a real magazine and do some journalistic work and quit being some lap dog. This is why no one is listening to you guys anymore. Quit being a bitch and suck it.
- Tyrghast, on 01/26/2008, -4/+31I certainly hope this isn't a surprise, of all the newspapers in america the New York Times has been one of the most slanted and biased
- freebot, on 01/26/2008, -8/+32There so should be a law against media endorsing a candidate, so that they will stay unbiased and impartial when reporting the news.
- mannyv, on 01/26/2008, -10/+33Well, in this case the article is accurate; the Times was not as adamantly against the Iraq war back then as it would have you believe. However, when Democrats lie it's OK, because they mean well...or so they say. Those Republicans, though, are all lying scum.
- OC73, on 01/26/2008, -3/+25Most left wingers in politics today--be they political figures or influential media types--revised their history on iraq as a way to make others believe they've always considered Saddam a benign dictator--and only briefly went along with the Iraq war after the president took advantage of their post 9/11 vulnerabilities and hoodwinked them into believing Iraq was a threat. The NY Times is no exception. In fact, they are among the chief architects in creating this absurd reality, which has given even a camera hungry, often quoted former president like Bill Clinton the opportunity to make ridiculous assertions, such as he was against the war "from the beginning."
- Ultra99, on 01/26/2008, -4/+21Doesn't surprise me one bit that they're abandoning the formerly popular pro-war jingiosm in favour of the currently popular anti-war zeitgeist. I suppose that makes them more of a fashion magazine than a newspaper though.
- poidh, on 01/26/2008, -8/+24Anything but. The New York Times is known as being rather "left wing". Not as "left wing" as some of the nutters on Digg, but still quite "left wing" all the same.
- Snarfy, on 01/26/2008, -3/+18 "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
***** anything the New York Times has to say. - taquitohater, on 01/26/2008, -2/+15I wish you were right but the way it is right now the only people calling politicians out for all their ***** are the people running comedy shows.
- mattmollysdad, on 01/26/2008, -5/+17From 1960 -1976 the NYT was the greatest newspaper... Sundays Section 4 was a masterpiece... But since the 1980 the Editorial Section writers are now featured above the fold, Section 1... sad but as they have sought to expand their base they have only diluted their mast head and now the paper is only good as fish wrap.
- codyman, on 01/26/2008, -4/+15in terms of Iraq, only a select few (i.e. Ron Paul) voted AGAINST going into Iraq... everyone else got in line and signed up for it all (although they'll never admit it and/or will try to dumb it down now i.e. billary)
New York Times / Los Angeles Times both are just printed rants cloaked as facts - handbiter, on 01/26/2008, -6/+17A bunch of soulless, gutless hacks. Their mea-culpa for ignoring dissenting opinions on wmd made it seem like there were no dissenting opinions around at the time. There were plenty of dissenting opinions, some by op-ed columnists just column-inches away. They owe their readers a real apology.
And they'll owe their (democratic) readers another one when Hillary gets her ass handed to her by McCain. - Rustymetal, on 01/26/2008, -6/+15I love how all the people posting truth in their comments get dug down. What you really think the media does not distort facts to their own agenda? LOL what age have you been living in? digg me down too
- themightyjobu, on 01/26/2008, -2/+10NeoCon, NeoLiberal; basically the same thing. They certainly like big governemt, and don't bother with real reporters.
- StingingNettle, on 01/26/2008, -1/+8I was hoping people wouldn't forget that the NY Times was one of the main reasons we went to war. They pushed the WMD angle hard. Remember the reporters getting busted and working with the Bush admin? And now they are anti war??? Give me a break.
- dropoutfilms, on 01/26/2008, -1/+8I read the Hillary endorsement and then promptly cancelled my Sunday subscription.
After they hired William "The Vampire" Kristol, this endorsement was the final nail in the coffin. - usingpond, on 01/26/2008, -0/+7Hillary Clinton? Using a SKETCHY CAMPAIGN TACTIC?! Well I never!!!!!!!
- moxley, on 01/26/2008, -4/+11The world is a stage
These asshat politicans are all players
You and I are pawns
The New York Times is the playbill
For News is the coming attractions.
Almost time to start a fire here. - Ultra99, on 01/26/2008, -2/+9It really is pathetic considering that the NYT is considered to be one of the more respectable institutions of journalism. Just pathetic. And to think that these same "respectable" institutions like to discredit online journalism as being shallow.
- stanleyford, on 01/26/2008, -2/+9"There so should be a law against media endorsing a candidate" -- Such a law would be an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
- crazywarthog, on 01/26/2008, -1/+7The New York Times lost its credibility as a serious institution a long time ago. The New York Times is entertainment only and is going extinct like the dinosaurs of past.
- nullity, on 01/26/2008, -1/+6I heard the Ministry of Truth is hiring...
- DarkPrincess74, on 01/26/2008, -5/+10There so should be a law against major corporations dictating the news to us but since most major media is all owned by conglomerates that benefit from manipulating the news then most major media is not unbiased and impartial.
- canadianbaking, on 01/26/2008, -1/+6Have a look at their stock price over the last 5 years:http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=5y. Readership is down, stock valuation is down... This used to be the greatest newspaper on earth, how sad they've been reduced to trying to pull off cr*p like this..
- darkspym7, on 01/26/2008, -0/+5I've lost all respect for the Times as a credible news source. They're just another biased media company now.
- tekkie001, on 01/26/2008, -4/+8very very well said !
- inactive, on 01/26/2008, -2/+6The New York Times is good only for cat litter. Want some more of their "journalism"?
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/More_Blatant_Bia ... - cygnus2112, on 01/26/2008, -5/+8At least the lefties can now maybe see what we moderates meant when we've been slamming NYT for their overly-biased reporting and real attempts to affect both domestic and foreign policies.
I believe and will defend one's right to free speech, with my own life if required. But I am not supportive of those who will intentionally lie and use all means necessary to destroy lives. - Telexen, on 01/26/2008, -0/+3Mind you that the NYT was in the unfortunate position of employing Dick Cheney's personal puppet (Judith Miller) during the leadup. Every lie during the leadup to the war printed in the NYT came from her. Their error at the time was employing a very bad reporter.
- rarson, on 01/26/2008, -0/+3Surely you meant to say "dissent" and not "decent."
- Saiyurie, on 01/26/2008, -1/+4i am a journalism major, at a school owned by an institute of journalism....when the ***** did it become ok to be as biased as most of our media is? ...technically, a news organization endorsing a candidate shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. ...as for "the paper of record" they have some good writers, they take a peek at international news (more so than many of the papers in this country)...and they have real hard crosswords. yes, they're biased.
name me a prominent news organization that isn't. - rarson, on 01/26/2008, -0/+3Politicians know they can say whatever they want, because all they have to do is wait a bit. Most Americans forget after a shockingly small amount of time, and won't be bothered to actually verify whether their new claims are correct. The media, as journalists, should be holding politicians accountable for their statements, but instead they are doing the opposite, helping them reinforce their latest position and enabling the politicians to get away with even more.
- inactive, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2"Depends on what your definition of " respectable is. :-)
1960 +/- and back, yes. Since then, it has been an increasingly marginalized shrill voice of the left. - ZenMojo, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Actually, a LOT of people voted against the Iraq War. Most of the House Democrats and half of the Senate Democrats. Few Republicans, on the other hand, voted against it (Lincoln Chafee, Ron Paul).
- ChaosMotor, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Hmm, a play doesn't have pawns, it has an audience that cannot interact or voice their opinion about the script, I'd say that's closer to what we are - a silent audience.
- OriginalLucid1, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Yes, taking over 1/8 of the economy by socializing health care is so exactly what Ronaldus Magnus would do.
- ZenMojo, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2You know, you can read the Times online for free. I don't even do that anymore.
- SLockhart, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Get back to us when you can construct a sentence.
- Tyrghast, on 01/26/2008, -4/+6but if you were sucking it, wouldnt you still be someone's bitch?
- Jenovaside, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Washington Post. Q.E.D.
- stanleyford, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2So journalists and editors give up their right to free speech when they sign on to work at a corporation? You may argue that these people are just mouthpieces for the people who control the corporation, but don't the decision-makers of a corporation also have free speech rights?
Let's say you write a blog in which you endorse a candidate I don't like. Should I have the right to censor you on the grounds that your blog doesn't have constitutional rights? I'm guess you'll say no. Now let's say you hire other people to write for your blog, all with the intention of supporting your candidate whom I dislike. Does that change the situation? Do I have the right to censor you when you hire others to speak for you? - stanleyford, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2"News isn't supposed to be an opinion." -- I agree. But just because you and I might believe that, that doesn't mean that we (or the government) have the right to curtail free speech, just because what the new is doesn't jive with our opinion of what the news should be.
"It's impossible for consumers to dictate the market when every station is in the hands of a small group of individuals that own practically everything. They simply bought out the competition." -- Look at Air America. Despite the fact that talk radio is predominantly conservative, there's a radio station out there that is disseminating the liberal viewpoint. Are they phenomenally successful? No, because radio consumers have indicated a preference for conservative commentary. But they're there for anyone who wants to listen, demonstrating that it's not impossible to have other opinions in the media, _provided that's what the consumers want_. - ZenMojo, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2The anti-war movement is manufactured dissent? The pro-war movement is manufactured assent.
935. - meesphht, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3They are a corp - they don't have constitutional rights only citizens do
- ZenMojo, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, corporations are entities given the rights of human beings but removed from any responsibility. In other words, they can steal, rape, and murder but they can't go to jail.
- dmadzak, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1I wish that were true, to the rest of the US that is the case, but politicians live and die by what the NYT reports. I have no clue why, but to dismiss them is to not understand how and why our politicians act.
- exgop, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1And that is why we are screwed
- void, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1hardly...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is