New York Times: Disgraceful Behavior
Michael Schuyler, who administers McCain Victory 08, which, if you're a blogger, you should join today, wrote the following letter to the New York Times regarding its smear-campaign against Senator John McCain.
Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.
It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.
The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.
Read The Economist Instead of the Times
Michael, an excellent letter. I may be one of the few people in the nation (even the liberals are holding their noses) that isn't "disappointed" by the Times. But that's because my expectations for the paper are extremely low. It’s little more than a propaganda sheet.
A year ago, I started subscribing to The (London) Economist, which is far superior to anything I see in the U.S. Oh, in 2000, The Economist endorsed John McCain for President, and in 2008 they're getting ready to do so again. They see him as an honorable man who doesn't share the foreign policy fantasies of, say, Barack Obama. I keep quoting The Economist in my blog, hoping to influence a few other people to shell out $99 a year for it.
The Economist recently had a story discussing the fact that many things 40-45 years ago were a lot better than they are now. For example, we had one-third the rate of teen suicides. The divorce rate was much, much lower. The population in the penitentiaries was about 40% of today’s number of inhabitants in the lock-up. The rates of murders and violent crimes generally were a fraction of what they are today.
Someone like Barack Obama can't handle such facts, which they are of course. i doesn't lead to audience chanting, Hare Krishna style, "Yes, we can." An Obama can't -- while a McCain can -- say, you know, we used to do a lot of things better than we do them now -- or will perhaps do them in the future.
I hear the commercial with the far-left Harvard Law professor, Lawrence Tribe, talking about Obama's "brilliance." I don't see it. I see a person demanding that we redistribute more income and concentrate less on securing this nation from people who hate us.
Stephen Moore has an article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about Obama’s disastrous economic policies. Last night on the Glenn Beck show, More said that "Yes, we can" means, among other things, yes we can raise the effective tax rate for people in NJ, NY, and CA to 60%. See, the government gets sixty cents, and the people working their butts off get 40 cents. "Yes, we can?" But "No, we absolutely should not.” Call it "Obamanomics."
Those of us who strongly support John McCain have a lot of work to do. And it's critically important that we begin today!