oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
After the way it let itself be shamelessly pimped for the pro-war movement it's hard to see it the same way as before.Blue Collar Joe said:And who is surprised by this? The Times is anything but an honest paper. It is an OpEd Paper, and not worth the price.
That it definitely did do.Simon W. Moon said:After the way it let itself be shamelessly pimped for the pro-war movement it's hard to see it the same way as before.
KCConservative said:Clearly The Times has it's priorities. Sad.
Kelzie said:Clearly it does. To sell newspaper. Take your beef to the American public who clearly want to buy it.
aquapub said:People buy it because it is apparently the source of all news in this country anyways.
Remember how many of Jayson Blair's phony stories got mindlessly regurgitated all across the country? All those media outlets weren't getting their stories from anywhere but the Times...obviously, because they were fabricated.
Mainstream, reasonable people see their extreme bias and the fact that they haven't endorsed a single Republican since Ike as a red flag. And mainstream America doesn't buy the paper, just a lot of coastal state liberals and people who need to know what the media is going to be regurgitating next.
Kelzie said:So what's the problem then?
mpg said:They still have a responsibility to be objective.
Kelzie said:Says who? It's a private company that sells good purchased by individuals. There is nothing that says they have to be objective.
akyron said:I agree.
Its a rag of falsehoods and should be advertised as such.
Kelzie said:I'm not...entirely...sure that advertising as a "rag of falsehoods" would be beneficial to their subscription amounts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?