Comments on: Vicki Iseman vs. the NYT could spell Big Trouble for the Grey Lady

By: Jimmy37

Jimmy37 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:48:46 +0000

I think the NYT is at the point of no return. Its apologists will continue to buy the paper out of loyalty or snobbery, and the rest of us will continue to stiff it.

Others believe that the fall of ad money is a general trend and that bias has nothing to do with it.

Perhaps this is true. But when I see my local paper put a pro-Palestinian piece on the front page, written by two Arabs, glorifying the Hamas leaders being killed, without adding Israeli information, I know it has stopped pretending to be fair.

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:31:51 +0000

43.Mike said “But…the main problem for the NYT and others like them is that they have become propaganda rags instead of news organizations and now they wonder why their readership is dropping like a rock and advertisers are staying away.”

Sorry mate, but even from the far side of the world I know that circulation is falling for reasons of internet news competition, Craigslist, Time-poor lifestyles and so forth – not so much for being a propaganda arm of Bush’s enemy du jour. I am told that bias boosts circulation in NY,DC and NJ; not cut it.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:42:00 +0000

Whatever occurs inside the Oval Office is OUR time, not the President’s.

By: vivo

vivo — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:40:26 +0000

Assuming the affair was true, this is like what happened to Clinton: who cares what they do with their OWN time? Unfortunately, there are lots of voyeurs and feeble minds around.

By: Kortney

Kortney — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:59:12 +0000

The NYT panders to a thin strip of New York Liberals
who subscribe to their idealogy and mirror their
thinking. The rest of the country doesn’t read the
Times.

By: misanthropicus

misanthropicus — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:35:27 +0000

During 2009 many more newspapers will fail or their circulation will further dwindle – and there is already talk about the government rescuing them in a manner resembling the auto industry or the finance institutions salvage.

It would be sheer lunacy for uncle Sam to spend the taxpayers’ money on operations which – like the epitome of political corruption, bias and partisanship the NYT and LAT are – are systematically undermining the voters’ (and taxpayers’) best interests.

I respect the Enquirer and LA SEX KITTENS – I know what I get for my money from them.
Let NYT and LAT die – no regrets.

By: Jim Baker

Jim Baker — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 05:41:39 +0000

Greg:
National Inquirer nailed that slease bag John Edwards. I am grateful to them. I think they have far more integrity than the NY Times. The Times and lots of other news rags will go belly up in the next year. But the reason is that most people are having their morning coffee with online news these days. I think it is harder to filter out the drivel online, so this “rumor as news” problem may worsen in the future.

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:56:14 +0000

Bush has approved funds for GM and the UAW because he’s going to need a couple of armored up Hummers to get around in starting next month

By: Alan Srout

Alan Srout — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:28:47 +0000

Will the so-called “journalists” at the New York Times/International Herald Tribune work out of their homes after the paper loses it’s building, or will the paper be defunct by then? Enquiring minds want to know.

By: '08ama

'08ama — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:06:38 +0000

John McSame is a womanizing pig with little or no respect for his wife(es)?

Yawwwwwn, wake me up when there’s some NEW news.