New York Times newspaper . . . .?
The NY Times has been hijacked just like every other news media outlet. The republicans are trying to control the media so they can influence public opinion and stay in power forever. It's not going to work but will rather have the opposite effect. People don't like being brainwashed and manipulated. They voted in overwhelming majority for Obama despite every newspaper, magazine and news channel's portrayal of him as a far-distant second place candidate. If you had been following the elections they started every day's summary with a big long story about McCain (McCain had lunch with an old man today) and only mentioned Obama as a mere afterthought (by the way: that Obama guy gave a rally in Utah and 2 million people attended, but you don't need to hear about that. Let's go back to talking about McCain's lunch with the old dude...). Basically it was an act of censorship on the part of the media. And it is still going on. Obama has been our president for a month now and I rarely see, read or hear stories about him. The censorship continues. Apparently Obama has taken charge and done a lot of good things since he's been sworn in, but you would never know that from watching NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, reading the NYTimes, Time, Newsweek, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the Times is losing readership. Yet they just moved in (or are going to move in) to a new skyscraper. I wouldn't be surprised if their circulation is increasing as well. But they are probably picking up new readers in places like Texas and Montana. Still, I wonder where they are getting their money from?
Why is the new york times a traitorus rag????
Traitors of Record: The Record of the New York Times Original FReeper Research | 12/19/2005 | Fedora Posted on 12/19/2005 8:51:45 AM PST by Fedora Traitors of Record: The Record of the New York Times By Fedora “. . .the most untrustworthy paper in the United States. . .” --President Dwight Eisenhower, referring to the New York Times
This question would best be answered by someone in the Times’ news department, but until someone there weighs in, I will offer some insight. I was an advertising director at the Times, and we often got this question from our advertisers or someone at their ad agency. Being a high revenue advertiser in the Times has no influence on whether your company is written up favorably or not, or even whether you were covered at all. It is a hallmark of the Times to report news “without fear of favor” and coverage cannot be bought. The invisible wall between news and the business side was pretty thick while I was there, but in the current digital environment there is more discussion of story ideas, but still within the non-influence guidelines. Despite how it may look to some readers, I can assure you I couldn’t get a story about a store or business opening or new business idea published just because they ran a spread. Stories have to stand on their own newsworthiness.As a marketer or a reader, you have the ability to contact columnists and reporters now more than ever before. Most stories have a place to add your comments and feedback which are likely to be read by the author. There are links to email some individual columnists and reporters too. To pitch your story, you can send press releases or stories to the appropriate editor of the section you believe your item should appear under, and they may forward it to the correct person. Go to the NY Times home page (nytimes.com), scroll to the bottom and click on Contact Us. There you will find ways to contact each of the section desks in the news department.
Can a critic give me one example of the New York Times being blatantly partisan off the editorial page?
Certainly the overall technological level of mankind has increased over the last couple of centuries with the Industrial and Electronic and information revolutions. However, the idealistic picture you're painting is not the whole story. This is a surface snapshot. Underneath those "eradicated" diseases are resistant new forms of disease. We (mankind) are not the only species on Earth to evolve; our advances have not proceeded without consequences. It is the fear of those consequences which informs many of the Luddite persuasion and those who would have us halt technological progress to allow human psychological and social development to catch up with our prowess with craftsmanship and physical innovation. Then there are those who fear blindly, the ones who take emotional cues from religious texts and use them to justify attempts to halt progress for no other reason than it presents a vague threat that is not fully understood. While Utopia is far from achieved in today's society, it is not homogeneous, nor should it be. There should always be a cautionary voice to offset the eager futurists. However, when the voice of unreasonable fear takes hold and gains a majority say, that is when things become shaky and scary. A complex problem, but not one that is unexpected in any advance society with many layers. Thanks for the question; sorry I'm not an atheist, but I pop in on these all the time, as few questions are aimed at agnostics.
Do you believe the New York Times was wrong for making our security measures news?
Your question isn't compatible with your text. No, I don't believe the NY Times was wrong in publishing news about our security measures. Hell, Bush himself had confirmed that the U.S. was monitoring terrorists' bank accounts in press conferences and public interviews! Bush leaked information to the press when it conveniently fit his agenda. You can't have it both ways: either the Fourth Estate is the guardian of our freedoms, or it is a controlled function of the government. In America, a 'free press' is vital to the success of our republic. As for your ramblings about Jewish newspaper owners, what's your point? Are you saying Jews don't make good newspaper publishers, or are you just a modern-day version of Hitler who believes Jews should be exterminated? Who cares if all these newspapers owners are Jewish? I'm appalled - and ashamed - that there are people alive today with such bigotry in their evil hearts. -RKO-
Knowledge, no not at all. The New York Times reports what is in the news, and it’s wrong quite a few times which is why the print retractions quite frequently. News doesn’t equate to knowledge, it keeps you more aware of the world around you and that does give you a type of knowledge, but not the ones that really matter. Another aspect is that the news industry, including NYT, is influenced by opinion no matter what the source. This will usually only give you one side of the story.Best place for actual knowledge is books about knowledge that deal in facts. History books that recollect past events accurately and always multiple sources. Everything written down has a bit of a rosy tint to it by an author’s bias so you need multiple sources, but news papers aren’t a great place for general knowledge.What they are great for is after you have knowledge you can then use them to become more aware of the world around you, critically think on the world, and grow as a person in another way. However without the knowledge to truly understand what you are reading it’s not a good starting place.
How many New York Times number 1 bestsellers has Stephen King had?
I am not sure how many number 1 but I believe he has had six bestsellers and found the following on a website. "When it comes to a Stephen King novel, popularity is very hard to determine. Americans just seem to be in love with everything this man writes. “Stephen King is somewhat of record holder also. He has had six books on the NEW YORK TIMES, USA TODAY and PUBLISHER'S Weekly, as bestsellers. Now that is pretty good, but his distinction is that all six books were listed all at the same time!” (http://datalist.idsite.com/sking_table.html)"
In my opinion, the NYT are absolutely right. The Republican party had no ethical reason to block President Obama’s Constitutional right to nominate a Justice to replace Scalia. The President had an obligation to nominate a replacement justice, and the senate had an obligation to conduct a review. What the Republicans did was despicable.What I would like to see is the President given the authority to appoint an “acting” replacement for any open supreme court seat or cabinet position and the senate having the authority to replace that acting member with another presidential nominee, but not the authority to block the president from appointing an acting replacement.