aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
For those of you liberal hysterics who neurotically whine about links, the above link is to the story in question.
The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.
I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:
I guess it was also a coincidence that the New York Times needlessly replaced the more accurate word, “surveillance” with the more accusative, outraged word, “eavesdropping” all throughout this front page story. There’s no way the “right wing” New York Times would have used this slanted choice of wording to generate ACLU-style, anti-big brother sentiment (paranoia), right? :roll:
This blatant editorial effort to influence the passage of the Patriot Act might not have been such an overt admission of the New York Times’ liberal aims if the paper had kept their editorial sabotage efforts on their EDITORIAL page instead of their FRONT PAGE, where OBJECTIVE news is supposed to be reported.
Needless to say, the always ethics-challenged Democrats in charge of the major papers across the country-who clearly take all their cues from the New York Times- parroted the same DNC talking points with very few exceptions.
But the New York Times definitely still gets to walk away from the month of December with the Un-Ethics award for using excerpts from one of their journalists’ (activists’) book-writing endeavors on the front page as legitimate news coverage.
For those of you liberal hysterics who neurotically whine about links, the above link is to the story in question.
The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.
I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:
I guess it was also a coincidence that the New York Times needlessly replaced the more accurate word, “surveillance” with the more accusative, outraged word, “eavesdropping” all throughout this front page story. There’s no way the “right wing” New York Times would have used this slanted choice of wording to generate ACLU-style, anti-big brother sentiment (paranoia), right? :roll:
This blatant editorial effort to influence the passage of the Patriot Act might not have been such an overt admission of the New York Times’ liberal aims if the paper had kept their editorial sabotage efforts on their EDITORIAL page instead of their FRONT PAGE, where OBJECTIVE news is supposed to be reported.
Needless to say, the always ethics-challenged Democrats in charge of the major papers across the country-who clearly take all their cues from the New York Times- parroted the same DNC talking points with very few exceptions.
But the New York Times definitely still gets to walk away from the month of December with the Un-Ethics award for using excerpts from one of their journalists’ (activists’) book-writing endeavors on the front page as legitimate news coverage.