|
Newt Gingrich: Seven questions for the New York Times; A "must read" for all liberals
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 16 2016, 10:25 AM (1,316 Views)
|
|
W A Mozart
|
Nov 16 2016, 10:25 AM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Quote:
-
New York Times Newt Gingrich By Newt Gingrich Published November 16, 2016 FoxNews.com
On Sunday, the publisher and the executive editor of the New York Times published a letter to the paper’s readers, promising to “rededicate” the paper to its “fundamental mission”. That mission, they said, is to “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”
This is as close as the Times is likely to come to apologizing to its readers for a year and a half of unbalanced--and often unhinged--coverage of the presidential race.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/16/newt-gingrich-seven-questions-for-new-york-times.html
|
|
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Nov 16 2016, 10:26 AM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
This is good...!
Here are the seven questions:
- Quote:
-
1. Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?
2. Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?
3. Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?
4. Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?
5. Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinions or pure speculation--such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?
6. Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?
7. Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?
If the answer to all of these questions is “no”--why would anyone believe that the paper is now “rededicated” to honesty? And why would anyone trust the New York Times to report on American politics?
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Nov 16 2016, 10:37 AM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,187
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
I know a guy in New Hampshire who thinks the NY Times is the most holy of holy's, the direct word of God, the sacred text of the Bible....He probably now believes that Newt is a blasphemer............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Nov 16 2016, 10:40 AM
Post #4
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
One is amused to see fans of Breitbart News and Fox News calling for fair and balanced by the most influential and avowedly liberal newspaper in the country.
There is confusion here about "the media," which, as the term implies, suggests that the different sources of news and information share common roots and responsibilities. They don't.
The press (newspapers) have always been politically partisan; in fact, many of them used to be owned by political parties. Partisan support and attack have been the foundation of editorial policy since the days of Jim and Benny Franklin. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Radio and TV do not have their roots in "the press." From the beginning, these media have been seen as commercial users of the publicly-owned airwaves, rather as trucking companies use the public highways. This difference has meant much more stringent censorship of content, including advertising, and government licensing dependent on meeting standards of fairness and the public interest which have never applied to the press.
As usual, the American public, ignorant of its laws and history, is whining and griping about a situation which, although deplorable, is not what it thinks it is. The right is, as usual, screaming over the wrong thing.
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
edro14
|
Nov 16 2016, 11:01 AM
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,628
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #25
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
"I know a guy in"....what this? yep, the rumor has it that "I know a guy" in what ever is junior high school........ its ridiculous.
Carry on.
Edited by edro14, Nov 16 2016, 11:01 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Nov 16 2016, 11:05 AM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,187
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- edro14
- Nov 16 2016, 11:01 AM
"I know a guy in"....what this? yep, the rumor has it that "I know a guy" in what ever is junior high school........ its ridiculous.
Carry on.
Okay, if you must know, his name is George...............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
edro14
|
Nov 16 2016, 11:08 AM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,628
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #25
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Thanks! LOL
|
|
|
| |
|
peewee
|
Nov 16 2016, 11:54 AM
Post #8
|
|
- Posts:
- 6,942
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #218
- Joined:
- May 29, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Nov 16 2016, 10:25 AM
- Quote:
-
New York Times Newt Gingrich By Newt Gingrich Published November 16, 2016 FoxNews.com
On Sunday, the publisher and the executive editor of the New York Times published a letter to the paper’s readers, promising to “rededicate” the paper to its “fundamental mission”. That mission, they said, is to “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”
This is as close as the Times is likely to come to apologizing to its readers for a year and a half of unbalanced--and often unhinged--coverage of the presidential race. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/16/newt-gingrich-seven-questions-for-new-york-times.html If the Times hopes to survive the next four years it would be wise for them to admit their printed fraud and begin the kiss up process to gain Trump's favor. Otherwise, out of business.
|
|
|
| |
|
peewee
|
Nov 16 2016, 11:58 AM
Post #9
|
|
- Posts:
- 6,942
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #218
- Joined:
- May 29, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 16 2016, 10:40 AM
One is amused to see fans of Breitbart News and Fox News calling for fair and balanced by the most influential and avowedly liberal newspaper in the country.
There is confusion here about "the media," which, as the term implies, suggests that the different sources of news and information share common roots and responsibilities. They don't.
The press (newspapers) have always been politically partisan; in fact, many of them used to be owned by political parties. Partisan support and attack have been the foundation of editorial policy since the days of Jim and Benny Franklin. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Radio and TV do not have their roots in "the press." From the beginning, these media have been seen as commercial users of the publicly-owned airwaves, rather as trucking companies use the public highways. This difference has meant much more stringent censorship of content, including advertising, and government licensing dependent on meeting standards of fairness and the public interest which have never applied to the press.
As usual, the American public, ignorant of its laws and history, is whining and griping about a situation which, although deplorable, is not what it thinks it is. The right is, as usual, screaming over the wrong thing. The NYT evolved into an every day version of the National Enquirer. Gossip, crap, and unmitigated bias printed garbage.
|
|
|
| |
|
peewee
|
Nov 16 2016, 11:58 AM
Post #10
|
|
- Posts:
- 6,942
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #218
- Joined:
- May 29, 2016
|
- Robert Stout
- Nov 16 2016, 11:05 AM
- edro14
- Nov 16 2016, 11:01 AM
"I know a guy in"....what this? yep, the rumor has it that "I know a guy" in what ever is junior high school........ its ridiculous.
Carry on.
Okay, if you must know, his name is George............... George of the Jungle?
|
|
|
| |
|
edro14
|
Nov 16 2016, 12:05 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,628
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #25
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Nope he brought Governor George Wallace who would be more than happy to promote the Donald in his efforts to make America white again. Just bringing up the truth factor in.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mr. Tik
|
Nov 16 2016, 12:10 PM
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,993
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #102
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Nov 16 2016, 10:26 AM
This is good...! Here are the seven questions: - Quote:
-
1. Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?
2. Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?
3. Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?
4. Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?
5. Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinions or pure speculation--such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?
6. Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?
7. Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?
If the answer to all of these questions is “no”--why would anyone believe that the paper is now “rededicated” to honesty? And why would anyone trust the New York Times to report on American politics?
Mozart The same questions back to brietbart, flipping the script
|
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
|
| |
|
Mr. Tik
|
Nov 16 2016, 12:11 PM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,993
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #102
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 16 2016, 10:40 AM
One is amused to see fans of Breitbart News and Fox News calling for fair and balanced by the most influential and avowedly liberal newspaper in the country.
this
|
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Nov 16 2016, 12:24 PM
Post #14
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- peewee
- Nov 16 2016, 11:58 AM
- George Aligator
- Nov 16 2016, 10:40 AM
One is amused to see fans of Breitbart News and Fox News calling for fair and balanced by the most influential and avowedly liberal newspaper in the country.
There is confusion here about "the media," which, as the term implies, suggests that the different sources of news and information share common roots and responsibilities. They don't.
The press (newspapers) have always been politically partisan; in fact, many of them used to be owned by political parties. Partisan support and attack have been the foundation of editorial policy since the days of Jim and Benny Franklin. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Radio and TV do not have their roots in "the press." From the beginning, these media have been seen as commercial users of the publicly-owned airwaves, rather as trucking companies use the public highways. This difference has meant much more stringent censorship of content, including advertising, and government licensing dependent on meeting standards of fairness and the public interest which have never applied to the press.
As usual, the American public, ignorant of its laws and history, is whining and griping about a situation which, although deplorable, is not what it thinks it is. The right is, as usual, screaming over the wrong thing.
The NYT evolved into an every day version of the National Enquirer. Gossip, crap, and unmitigated bias printed garbage. One is tempted to ask little Peewee the question that dumbfounded Mrs. Palin, "what papers do you read every day?"
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Nov 16 2016, 12:33 PM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 16 2016, 10:40 AM
One is amused to see fans of Breitbart News and Fox News calling for fair and balanced by the most influential and avowedly liberal newspaper in the country.
There is confusion here about "the media," which, as the term implies, suggests that the different sources of news and information share common roots and responsibilities. They don't.
The press (newspapers) have always been politically partisan; in fact, many of them used to be owned by political parties. Partisan support and attack have been the foundation of editorial policy since the days of Jim and Benny Franklin. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Radio and TV do not have their roots in "the press." From the beginning, these media have been seen as commercial users of the publicly-owned airwaves, rather as trucking companies use the public highways. This difference has meant much more stringent censorship of content, including advertising, and government licensing dependent on meeting standards of fairness and the public interest which have never applied to the press.
As usual, the American public, ignorant of its laws and history, is whining and griping about a situation which, although deplorable, is not what it thinks it is. The right is, as usual, screaming over the wrong thing.
- Quote:
-
"... by the most influential and avowedly liberal newspaper in the country. "
Whoaaa! Whoaaa!
Avowedly liberal? Where does it say that? In it's masthead? "We are advocates for the Democratic Party! We are Liberals. Vote Democrats, ..always!"
C'mon Georgie. Newt Gingrich is pulling their pants down (The New York Times) for all the world to see. Are there ANY, ...I mean ANY Republicans/Conservatives on the New York Times? Who are they? Where are they? Hiding under their desks?
If not, how in the name of Karl Marx can the New York Times be called anything but advocacy newspaper for ONE political party? ....Democrats/Liberals? They KNOW nothing about conservatism, or the Republican Party, yet claim to be the paper "of record." For whom? Marxists? Liberals? Which records are they keeping? Those that tow the liberal party line? Hmmm? This is pure insanity.
This is precisely what Trump (whom I do not like) should be doing. Go after the New York Times and its liberals. You liberals created this monster, Trump, by giving him massive FREE air time when he was running in the Republican primaries. Non-stop Trump coverage during the Republican primaries, hoping, praying that He would be the one selected to run for the Republicans in 2016, and then, ...then, ...we can TRASH him! Great plan! It worked!
One problem, however, Trump is now President-elect. Oooops, how'd that happen?
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Nov 16 2016, 12:40 PM
Post #16
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Adolph Hipster
- Nov 16 2016, 12:10 PM
- W A Mozart
- Nov 16 2016, 10:26 AM
This is good...! Here are the seven questions: - Quote:
-
1. Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?
2. Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?
3. Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?
4. Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?
5. Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinions or pure speculation--such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?
6. Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?
7. Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?
If the answer to all of these questions is “no”--why would anyone believe that the paper is now “rededicated” to honesty? And why would anyone trust the New York Times to report on American politics?
Mozart The same questions back to brietbart, flipping the script No, Ace.
The same questions to:
ABC News CBS News NBC News MSNBC ( ) CNN The BBC All government-sponsored European news outlets. All American newspapers All European newspapers and magazines
(The list goes on)
What is the definition of journalism? Hmmm?
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Nov 16 2016, 01:42 PM
Post #17
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
The Sulzberger family has run the Times for generations in the great American tradition of newspaper families. As the newspaper industry has declined, the Times has become the paper of record for America. It is, and has always been, spokesman for the New York political elite. Because New York City is the media capital of America, the Times has a nation-wide audience and influence.
The illiterate right is infuriated by the Times' sense of superiority and its New York values which go beyond mere "liberalism" as defined down in Dogpatch. Watching our fascist bumpkins try to tip over the greatest newspaper in America is a bit like watching a cute little dog lift his leg and pee on the Washington Monument.
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
coverpoint
|
Nov 16 2016, 01:59 PM
Post #18
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,273
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #53
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Nov 16 2016, 10:26 AM
This is good...! Here are the seven questions: - Quote:
-
1. Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?
2. Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?
3. Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?
4. Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?
5. Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinions or pure speculation--such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?
6. Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?
7. Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?
If the answer to all of these questions is “no”--why would anyone believe that the paper is now “rededicated” to honesty? And why would anyone trust the New York Times to report on American politics?
Mozart When a major political party is led by a racist, it is the media’s duty to expose that racism to the American public.
|
|
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Nov 16 2016, 02:30 PM
Post #19
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Nov 16 2016, 01:42 PM
The Sulzberger family has run the Times for generations in the great American tradition of newspaper families. As the newspaper industry has declined, the Times has become the paper of record for America. It is, and has always been, spokesman for the New York political elite. Because New York City is the media capital of America, the Times has a nation-wide audience and influence.
The illiterate right is infuriated by the Times' sense of superiority and its New York values which go beyond mere "liberalism" as defined down in Dogpatch. Watching our fascist bumpkins try to tip over the greatest newspaper in America is a bit like watching a cute little dog lift his leg and pee on the Washington Monument. No, ...no, ....no.
We're not gonna let you off the hook on this one.
I know all about the "weirdo" Sulzberger. Even Vanity Fair considers this guy, who has LOST millions of dollars running the Times, a very strange egg indeed.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/05/new-york-times200905
But, yet, you haven't responded to my question. You are "tap dancing" around it. If the New York Times CLAIMS to speak for all Americans, howz come there isn't a SINGLE Republican/Conservative on their staff? Dude, you may not like us, you might not understand our capitalistic, free market ideas, but we still got 50% of the vote in the latest Presidential elections.
Versteh? This isn't the Marxist Brotherhood of Vermont. This isn't the Green Party. Republicans, ...fifty percent. Our ideas matter. We are part of America. Yet, the idiot who runs the New York Times, and who by many accounts is a hated figure within the confines of the newspaper, refuses to recognize us. WTF...?
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Nov 16 2016, 02:38 PM
Post #20
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- coverpoint
- Nov 16 2016, 01:59 PM
When a major political party is led by a racist, it is the media’s duty to expose that racism to the American public. How very silly of you.
You forgot to mention that he was a Nazi too, wears swastika's on his arms when not seen in public ...and is a contributing member of the KKK as well. No question. Trust me. He also hates puppies, wears leather marching boots whenever he can and sleeps under a portrait of Joseph Goebbels. Trust me.
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|