 Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted Books In Print, Audio Books. |
| Home » All Books |
|
|
Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted
buy bestselling books in print, audio books
|
 |
List Price: $25.99
Our Price:
You Save: $0
|
| [ + Zoom ] [ Buy Now ] |
Book : This item is currently not available. |
|
Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted Customer Reviews
|
|
|
|
♥♥♥♥♥
|
al-Gore should take heed
|
It's funny how, by virtue of controlling the media and having the pacifist Euro crowd love you, a lying hypocrite with an agenda can win the Nobel "Peace" Prize, and poor Bob Kohn, with his meticulous research and a VERY noble cause, gets little notice. Welcome to the Orwellian World of 2007.
My father grew up pouring through "The Grey Lady" each day. Like most of his friends, liberal or conservative, he stopped reading this rag a few years back. He didn't need news stories turned into anti-american op-eds by a clever staff of New School alumni lunatics who place, omit, add, and throw in subjective words wherever they find fit, simply to please their left wing elite establishment. Is it any wonder the Muslim Jihadists quote from the NY Crimes? Was the fact that their former ombudsman confirmed an inherent lefty bias not enough? Was the firing of affirmative action reporters who made up stories in their apartment not enough? What else? This paper has less credibility than any of your local weekly fish wraps. Sadly though, since most city papers get their international stories from the Times, and Starbucks and every public or collegiate library has a subscription, these Marxists are still sailing along arrogantly, giving away national security secrets, burying pro-american stories, leading with stories about the "poor Muslims," etc. They are the worst. And looking at the reviews of Kohn's book, you can tell these vapid, negative reviewers did not read it. If they did, they'd never be able to stomach opening that blue bag ever again. Instead, they ignore and spew hatred. A typical quality of leftists.
I penned an article about the NY Crimes last year after I thought they'd hit a new low. (That was before they defaced General Petraus and much else. Hyperlinks were included in original article, but not on Amazon review.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America so as to reach out to our enemies in the War on Terror. To then defend themselves, arrogantly acting as if Americans are out of line for doubting their intentions, displays a sort of elitism that is unparalleled even in the long history of "the Grey Lady." With The Times "above the law" mentality, it is noteworthy to look at some of their treasonous publications within the War on Terror.
Here then are the top ten most morale--lowering, disingenuous pieces from the NYT over just the past three years:
10. "The Deaths at Gitmo" (June 12, 2006)
In the world of the Times, anything that makes the American military look juvenile or ruthless makes good copy. The Guantanamo Bay ordeal has been a favorite of theirs for some time. In this long--winded diatribe, the editorial staff laments that so many Gitmo prisoners were never charged with crimes, discusses their despair and blames President Bush for creating this "netherworld."
9. "One month of Abu Ghraib front page stories" (May 1--June 1, 2004)
Two years ago, for the entire month of May, the Times ran at least one story per day, demeaning our troops and federal government for the way the Abu Ghraib prison was run. Each article is linked.
8. "Despite Appeals, Chaos Still Stalks the Sudanese" (July 18, 2004)
Phyllis Chesler's piece entitled, "When you can't say Muslim!" discusses a Times piece (one of many, no doubt) in which the writers tiptoe around sounding politically incorrect and culturally insensitive, refusing to label the terrorists as Arabs or Muslims, much less radical extremists.
7. "The Mystery of the Insurgency" (May 15, 2005)
James Bennet pleads with the Times to cease labeling our mass--murdering enemies "insurgents" and define them properly. Christoper Hitchens also helps makes sense of the Times "multicultural" madness. Needless to say, more than a year later, the Times and the media in general have not acquiesced.
6. "NY Times Blows Cover of Key Counter Terror Agent" (August, 2004).
As reported above by Newsmax. Enough said.
5. "Despite his Troubles, Arafat Endures as a Leader and Symbol" (July 27, 2004)
A little more than three months before his death, the Times' Greg Myre, like Jimmy Carter and too many others, was still lauding the "Palestinian" leader. Although the article is not a hagiography, it does not condemn Arafat, discusses his longevity, and notes, among much else, that "he remains the enduring symbol of Palestinian aspirations to full nationhood."
4. "All the News that's fit to Print?" (March, 2003)
The National Review's Tom Gross discusses at length how the Times picks and chooses which deaths and destructive activities to report and photograph more often, and with more (or less) coverage. He also debunks the oudated myths that the paper is "pro--Israel."
3. "Passive Voice Genocide" (August 3, 2005)
Jason Maoz of the Jewish Press, writing for Front Page Magazine, discusses many of the same mistaken priorities that Gross did two years prior. However, Maoz goes further, discussing the word structure of certain headlines and how they can obfuscate the matters at hand. He concludes by noting the Times' unflappable concerns over dead "Palestinians." Is that really Pro--Israel?
2. "Is the NY Times a Liberal newspaper?" (July 25, 2004)
Daniel Okrent, the former ombudsman of the paper, delicately explains how the Times leans left. He naturally stops short of saying anything insidious, and in a May 2006 interview I heard with him on National Public Radio, he recanted much of this saying he regretted the first few words of his piece: "Of course it is."
1."Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater" (June 26, 2006)
David Limbaugh's most recent piece featuring the Times' most recent (and perhaps most deplorable) anti--american actions. Limbaugh explains the legal ramifications of the paper's disclosure of secure information, notes the Times' responses and elaborates on the long--term effects on this story.
Basically, as you can especially deduce from the recent pieces that harass the Bush Administration, aid our enemies, and betray America's trust, the Times shows the hypocritical propensity to clamor for certain checks and balances on the executive branch, yet turn a silent ear toward those same checks upon the legislative, judicial and, of course, themselves. That, along with their recalcitrance to call the enemy by name and denounce his actions, explains why so many Americans no longer trust the Times as a viable source of news.
|
|