But they have the best A-C-C-E-S-S!
2 Likes
The New York Times’ top editor defended his decision to publish some identifying information about the whistleblower whose complaint is at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry, arguing the paper wanted readers to make an informed decision about the person’s credibility.
In the further interests of credibility, the NY Times also states the team assembled to investigate Judith Miller’s use of anonymous sources is almost ready to hold their first meeting: we understand there may be some disagreement on the probity of her writing, but the people and policies that led to her work product being published are still with us, so we can’t rush things.
5 Likes
I have done my share of criticizing the NYT over the years. On this… meh.
Trump knew who he/she was right after the complaint was filed. That’s most likely why the person went to the IG and filed for WB protection.
They did not identify the WB to the public. They just said the person worked for the CIA and was not in a political position.
3 Likes
It began well before them. When Ronald Reagan became President, the NYT immediately fired its Latin American Editor and replaced him with a Neocon who changed their entire tone and coverage of the recently triumphant Sandinistas (triumphant over a family dictatorship of two entire generations’ duration)and the Guerillas in El Salvador and elsewhere.
And do not even get me started on their pandering to the AIPAC and the Likud beginning at or about generally the same period in our foreign policy. Although to be fair, they were a big part of a Pro-Likud, pro AIPAC campaign to discredit Jimmy Carter once he tried to weigh in for some fairness to the Palestinian side of the equation. The NYT formed part of a 4 year smear campaign which included Bill Sapphire’s regular Pro Likud columns.
I cancelled in the 80s, began reading Newsday, which was a viable option until the Dolans added it to their crap media empire. Now I read the Washington Post, where I have to tolerate Hugh Hewitt and Marc Thiessen and the lesser neocon lite fare they bend over backwards to include.
3 Likes
They only like the truth when it suits the republican agenda.
This was a tough call to start with. The whistleblower can probably be identified now when their anonymity was promised. I don’t envy anyone at the Times…or anywhere really…who is faced with making these kinds of decisions.
1 Like
Let it be known, however, that Bigfoot uses the tunnels under that Brooklyn pizza shop with Killary’s permission.
1 Like
At least so long as they protect that access.
Interestingly enough, when one of these idiots does move on (usually after flagrant violations of their own policy) nobody seems to want to hire them. Nonetheless, they all continue to live high off the hog. Perhaps their “sources” take care of their reporters? It’s obvious that the “sources” call all the shots. We don’t even know if they exist (although if it’s a female reporter and these are typical dumb entitled males of the type who populate the White House, I’m sure they do like phoning it in a breathless sex-offender tone.)
1 Like
AND if ‘something’ happens to the Whistle Blower the NY Times will cover that too and go Tut Tut Tut about our polarized society.
1 Like
They published what they did because they could
and because the Washington Post has been kicking their butt
on all things Trump since before he was elected.
3 Likes
Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame in an act of treasonous vengeance. That was just for her husband telling the truth about the fake intelligence Bush used to lie us into the Iraq War. The GOP is a dirty, rotten, dangerous, lawless party of mafioso-types who would think nothing of offing the whistle-blower (as a lesson to others). No doubt about it, the WB better hide for a long time.
4 Likes
Exactly why Bob Woodward sold his spirit.
3 Likes
‘In the end, we’re all dead. So, you know- no harm, no foul.’ -Dean Baquet
2 Likes
Baquet seems to have gone to the Trump school of apologies which is to just double-down and never admit a mistake. If you still sub there, cancel and let them know why, there are other news outlets that do a much better job and don’t repeatedly make the same mistakes the NYT does.
2 Likes
Which is kinda what Marcus Aurelias says - but he makes sure you better act in an upright manner while you still walk the earth.
1 Like
The NYT endangers a person’s life for clicks and paper sales. In other words: filthy lucre, money. This is a new low for ethics in journalism.
There is no defense.
1 Like
Add David Brooks (and his famous column that referred to “the salad bar at Applebees” (Applebees has no salad bar) to the list of columnists currently wasting space on prime real estate.
1 Like
I see no reason to read a NY paper…the Washington Post is ok…but i prefer the LA TIMES… and the MIAMI HERALD… I live in Florida…we get enough of NY from the snow birds that come here…some are really annoying.
1 Like
Now deceased. I hope Joe Wilson died peacefully in the presence of others. Otherwise it will be Obama/Hillary who did it.
NY people annoying??? Really???
Say it ain’t so!!!
LA Times seems like a good paper, and I might consider subscribing if they weren’t always hiding behind a paywall on my Apple News. Not that Apple is hiding everything now in an attempt to make you pay for Apple News…I like some of the Miami Herald stuff I have read concerning Epstein, and some international coverage. But for too long (my college and grad school years, back in the 70-80s) they were too predictably in line with the Hard Line Cuban Exile community, and it will take a long time for me to ever feel comfortable reading the Herald, or El Herald, as my mine source of news. Plus, there was all those really annoying years where they had LeBron James on the Heat and were total front runners (like the NY Post with the Yankees) in their Sports coverage.