The New York Times Loses Its Credibility Completely
OK, that’s it. I vouch to no longer trust and / or link to the New York Times. It may have been a mighty fine newspaper once, but it has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Andrew Breitbart on his Twitter feed yesterday:
Why does this 2002 NY TIMES article seem so… timely, revealing? Some secret program. Someone forward to Panetta.
Here’s the article. Karl, writing at Hot Air’s GreenRoom, comments:
Could it be that CIA Director Panetta does not have a good grip on the history of his agency’s post-9/11 efforts? Could it be that his Democratic colleagues have such a knee-jerk hostility to the CIA that they would jump on bad info to attack the CIA and Fmr. Vice-Pres. Cheney as a modified limited defense of Speaker Pelosi’s prior bogus attacks on the CIA regarding briefings on interrogation tactics? Could it be that the geniuses of the NYT forgot they already blew the program?
(Hint: Yes, Yes and Yes.)
I’m not so sure. The NYT could be that incompetent, sure. But my guess is that it’s not incompetence at all. No, I think it’s foul play. Democrats are in trouble. Americans favor Republicans on eight of the ten most important subjects. Obama’s approval rating has fallen, his favorability rating will follow. Democrats in Congress are highly unpopular.
So they need a decoy. They need something. They need a controversy. A fake or an old one if necessary.
And the NYT delivered. Just like a good little mouthpiece should.
Pathetic, and extremely sad.
From now onwards, you will not see me link to the NYT again. They’ve got no credibility left.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Wait, is this issue supposed to be settled all of a sudden? This seems to be some sort of attempt to close the discussion prematurely and label one side as discredited without really bothering to explain why.
The New York Times has a long tradition of shilling for totalitarians and the left. Walter Duranty’s reporting on the great achievements of Stalin’s USSR garnered a Pulitzer Prize for the NYT, even though reports were leaking out of the USSR about the purges, the starvation of non-conformist peasants, and other unsavory aspects of the ‘worker’s paradise.’ The NYT didn’t see any need to verify any of this or report on it, because Comrade Joe was a progressive in their opinion.
It should surprise no one that the NYT continues to perform this way. It is not incompetence, but cold, calculating, cynical propagandizing. If there were a Dr. Josef Goebbels award for professing the Big Lie with a straight face, the NYT would have a room full of them. I canceled my NYT subscription fifteen years ago, and don’t miss it.
Kast, why do you keep interpreting all disagreement with you as an attempt to shut down discussion?
Given the dominance of your viewpoints in the media, academia, and blogosphere, I think those who disagree with you ARE the discussion, not its end.
“Kast, why do you keep interpreting all disagreement with you as an attempt to shut down discussion?”
In this case, I simply found the unequivocal statement to be a little too hasty. It seems a bit baseless to me and thus the depiction of the NYT as completely useless in the discussion looks like a shifting of the goalposts.
Criticism put that way is fine. But at the point you express criticism by imputing bad intent on to those you disagree with, you’re going to continue to have problems here. I’ve already had to edit several of your comments because of this persistent failing on your part and I am tiring of the effort. If you can’t find ways to express disagreement without attacking the personal character, integrity, or honesty of those you disagree with, you will unfortunately have to be banned from commenting on this site.