Insult the customers, that's always a good idea.

Sure; the larger point was to bash McCain as quickly as possible.

What bigger picture?
Happy Sat am Lizards. :)

It wasn't just "seen as a cheap shot" -- it was indeed a cheap shot.

Is it possible that I am first to comment here at LGF? How is that?

The arrogance of the NYT, and for that matter, almost all left-wingers is no news to me. The more left-wing a person is, the more arrogant. The NYT defines both.

Companies that insult their customers usually wind up not being around for very long.

Bye bye, NYT.

I feel better now, I wasn't first.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Was to get McCain...we got it.

To quote Homer Simpson:

Everybody's stupid but me!

The death rattle of a moribund organization

No surprise here. Dan Rather is still confused about why people didn't get his larger point.

The NYT does a crappy job of writing an article and WE are the dumb ones? WE are not the ones laying off employees.

Golly gee willikers I gotta' go git me an edumacation so I are smart an be able to figgur out what there gramsician whores is blabbering about.

Arrogant jerks. The NYT can't go bankrupt soon enough.

OT - It's been found out - the real reason why Bushilter helped Kosovo on it's path to independance (yeah, I know that it was President Clinton who started it).

[Link: www.newkosovareport.com...]

perhaps the nyt can find some information on obama on this site they migt give to its readers

[Link: www.freedomsenemies.com...]

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Yeah. Larger point = publishing an eight year old gossipy rumor in order to tank McCain.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.

The readers 'got it', Keller. You don't 'get' your readers.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

The larger point of the story is that a major newspaper can run with a 10 year old story with anonymous sources and expect the world to not notice. Because they are the New York Times.

Obtuse much? Yeah, that'll make your readers come around...

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

In every writing class I have ever taken, I was told that if you write an article and your audience doesn't get your point, it's not their fault, ITS YOUR FAULT! My, how things have changed.

What's so hard?
The container said "Hard hitting news" but all that was inside was molding smear.

My husband met Vicky Iseman at their boss' farm in Middleburg VA. They both worked for Hector Alcalde of Alcalde & Fay. My husband said she was really nice and sweet, but really doubts anything ever happened.

So the larger point of the story is what? Do tell!

Oh we see the larger point that you and your minions are traitorous wretches and that you truly believe that you are superior and above the consequences of your vain agenda.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Uh, that means that YOU did a bad job of writing. Lazy and incapable writers typically fall into this trap of blaming their readers.

hysterical is this

Dear NYT:
Remember the first rule of holes: When you're in one, dig harder and faster.

JWM

Let's give Bill a little sympathy

I mean, there are many things in life which are upsetting

Impotence
Losing one's memory and going senile
Losing the monopoly on the media and having your lies exposed and your readership shrinking faster than a scrotum in a cold swimming pool

so let's all give Bill a hug

Of course Mr. Keller is right, how can a bunch of beer-drinking simpletons like us understand reality. We need to attend more cocktail parties in Manhattan.

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

re: #27 Shug

With a boa constrictor?

NYT to readers.. HES A REPUBLICAN.. omg are you people stupid or what.. hes a republican!

Doh! Of course, we are stupid and the NYT team is genius. If you don't get it, it is not their fault, it is your fault. Always.

//

Stupid Proles!

re: #27 Shug

so let's all give Bill a hug

With nuclear arms...
BAWHAHAHAHA!

An English Prof once explained to our intro-to-argumentative-writing class that if an audience fails to understand your argument, odds are that the fault lies with the writer, not the audience... unless the writer works for the New York Times.

Actually, I made up that last part.

The trouble for the New York Times, though, is that everybody understands perfectly the point of the article. It's no different than John Kerry and John Edwards mentioning in their debates that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Or Shaheen mentioning that the GOP will attack Obama's early use of cocaine, therefore smart Dems should vote for Hillary.

"We believed it was vital for the story to accurately reflect the range of concerns shared by our sources," and to not succumb to "possible qualms over 'sexual innuendo,'" Abramson wrote.

. The Times will never succumb to possible qualms over journalistic ethics.

I can't believe that I still have some friends that think that reading the Slimes makes them better informed about the world.

Well lessee, I don't spend any of my money on the New York Times, so I guess I'm not 100% stupid.

possible qualms over sexual innuendo

The ivory tower mentality of the New York Times is amazingly arrogant and dense with stupidity all covered up.

re: #35 Tumulus11

succumbing to qualms

- That sounds so sexually qualmy.

JWM

they'll think what I tell them to think

If McCain is so crooked, why did the NYT endorse him last month?

Silly question for conservatives (we know the NYT's endorsement of McCain was disingenuous). I would still like to hear their lying answer, however.

re: #25 BabbaZee

hysterical is this

BabbaYoda?

re: #43 Mister Ghost

lol

There are rumors flying around about Hillary and her assistant. Will the NYT print any of that?

I guess arrogance and elitism are the hallmarks of good journalism?

keller is a complete fool. wonder if he is aware that mccain got a boost from this phony story.

re: #29 flynmudd

re: #27 Shug

With a boa constrictor?

or a boa feather. He would probably like that better

I suppose I should credit Bill O'Reilly for my #42, he actually contacted the NYT and asked them that question, and didn't get an answer (that always ticks him off).

* cough jayson blair * cough

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Translation: We hate republicans just because they're republicans. After all we've told you, I can't understand why you or anyone would vote for a republican. We've been trying to get this across for years and you still don't get. Are you stupid or what?

Where's Cognito to tell us puddin' heads how stupid we are?

Still waiting for the front page story on Dianne Feinsteinn's million dollar government contracts given to her husbands company.

re: #47 nyc redneck

keller is a complete fool. wonder if he is aware that mccain got a boost from this phony story.

"That wasn't supposed to happen!"

/see? I told you nobody got the point!

So Mr. Keller, do you deny you like to rape chickens?

Admit it and we have a story: deny it and we still have a story.

Considering the high esteem you hold your paper and yourselves in, I would think you be able to rise above this shoddy hack job and do something even-handed and investigative. How about a front page analysis of the legislative proposals of your own state's junior Senator and what they have actually represented to America or even New York?

Or, God forbid, a look into the hundreds or "present" votes the messiah - OBAMA! - has cast in his "career" and tie it out to how he has "changed" anything - ever?

Oh, thats right. You're too "neutral" to actually go after those "centrist" folks - only the extremists to the right of your position.

re: #45 rightymouse

Nope. Didn't you know~ it is waaay worse when a conservative does anything or if there is even a hint of a conservative doing anything because they claim to not do anything so they are hypocrites.

Period.

End of story.

^
I actually had that conversation with a lefty friend. ALL politicians claim to not do anything, not just conservative politicians! McCain either!

Any time a quisling tool like Todd Gitlin badmouths the NYT, even a dope like Keller should know he stepped in it. Hey, an unnamed source told me Pinch cornholes farm animals.

Yoda looks just like Peter Lorre would if he went through the Phantasm vortex and got small

Spoken like a good little delusional elitist that thinks he is smarter and more ethical than everyone else, including those that are smarter and more ethical than him.

re: #52 MandyManners

Invoke not the dreaded poor mans nodrog of blasphemy

lol

The executive editor of the NYT a tone-deaf, arrogant jackass in need of a serious cluebatting? Say it ain't so!

Why don't all you LGF rednecks STFU! You Beer-swilling, pick-up trucking driving, sports watching, gun-owning, child-rearing, NASCAR loving, Church going Hill-Billy's!

Obviously, your not sophisticated enough to understand that Mr. Keller and the NYT's staff is far above you and they know whats good for you.

/sarc

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

re: #60 BabbaZee

re: #52 MandyManners

Invoke not the dreaded poor mans nodrog of blasphemy

lol

What was I thinking?!

Iowahawk skewered Bill Keller in '06:
The Banking Report: Let Me Make It Simple For You Morons

From the Desk of Bill Keller
Executive Editor, The New York Times

With my hectic schedule of Pulitzer committees and Columbia Journalism School symposia, I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands. Lord knows I'll be in the Audi headed to a Friday night ACLU cocktail benefit in the Hamptons when my Blackberry starts beeping and I have to pull over on the Long Island Expressway, and it turns out to be a text message from some idiot in Wistucky bitching about the last Krugman column. But our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated a few questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response. I'll type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you morons with questions and concerns finally understand.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the spittle-flecked words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, how does somebody that retarded get my email? Cripes, I'm going to have a long chat with Network Services this week.) Some comes from not-quite-as-stupid readers who have considered the story in question and still wonder whether publishing such material is wise. Hey, go figure. Thankfully some comes from a better class of readers who are grateful for the information, and attach e-Vites to fabulous midweek gallery openings on the Upper West Side.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Jihadi Accountant and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? I'll tell you who we are, pal. We are journalists - the people whom the inventors of this country specifically appointed to be the protectors of this little experiment we call the "human race" against the privations of out-of-control Texas Oil Nazis. And if you check your Constitution, I don't think you'll see anything in there about the right to clog up the press's inbox with your stupid Rush Limbaugh talking points.

continued...

re: #42 zmdavid

No - I'm CERTAIN they'll endorse McCain in the general election!

hahahaha! That could happen...

re: #62 Maximu§

/sarc

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

we're not nuanced enough to understand sarc.

Didn't Keller cheat on his wife?

Bill Keller is desperate for anything that will resurrect what has become the slow and painful death of the NYTimes. Though if he thinks insulting his readers is one way to get them back, perhaps he is the one who is dense.

Bill Keller sounds like Cognito.

re: #62 Maximu§

Why don't all you LGF rednecks STFU! You Beer-swilling, pick-up trucking driving, sports watching, gun-owning, child-rearing, NASCAR loving, Church going Hill-Billy's!

Yeee haa!

>:- [

/them thar's fightin' words!

/i don't drink beer!

;-)

re: #69 Noam Sayin'

lol!

Do they still have lead pipe plumbing in the New York Times building? Someone should really check the drinking fountains.

This won't help their circulation.

re: #67 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Didn't Keller cheat on his wife?

Yeah, probably with another Man..

re: #67 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Didn't Keller cheat on his wife?

I have three unnamed sources who say they saw Bill Keller with a woman not his wife one time ten years ago. Given those facts and using standard NYTiimes logic, he was clearly cheating.

Noam they all speak the language of deception

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

No, it's up to your professional writers to make clear whatever the "larger point" of the story was supposed to be. Readers should not have to making guesses.

Keller and his henchmen managed to do something the primary process hadn't done yet, in getting parts of the Republican party together...

Thanks Bill :)

re: #77 reine.de.tout

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

No, it's up to your professional writers to make clear whatever the "larger point" of the story was supposed to be. Readers should not have to making guesses.

I thought it was up to the reader to decide what they feel was the larger point. Is that not what journalism is supposed to be? Present the facts in an orderly and professional fashion and let the reader make the determination based on their arguments.

re: #74 Maximu§

re: #67 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Didn't Keller cheat on his wife?

Yeah, probably with another Man..

Alan Colmes?

re: #77 reine.de.tout

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.
“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

No, it's up to your professional writers to make clear whatever the "larger point" of the story was supposed to be. Readers should not have to making guesses.

Facts don't matter, just the truthiness!

This is typical Northeast J school mentality. Veeery elitist.
When I took Journalism as an elective they stressed the four W's, Who, What, Where & Why.
Also check & verify. That has been replaced by agenda driven journalism.
If a similar piece had been written about their pet Obama, the NY Times would be screaming "McCarthyism"
The good news is The Times & The Post etc are just becoming more & More irrelevant.They should be ashamed, but they are not

re: #80 SecretInternetDoucheBag

re: #74 Maximu§

re: #67 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Didn't Keller cheat on his wife?

Yeah, probably with another Man..

Alan Colmes?

AAAH!

*runs away screaming, looking for brain bleach*

#55 Crashnburn 2/23/08 8:27:49 am reply quote report 0

'So Mr. Keller, do you deny you like to rape chickens?'

. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch didn't see any need to contact Mr. Keller. They're going to print with the chickens' side of the story.

Facts don't matter, just the truthiness!

re: #69 Noam Sayin'

Bill Keller sounds like Cognito.

Ever see 'em in the same room?
haha
Actually Cognito makes much more sense than Keller. I feel kind of sorry for him/her (Cognito) - its tough to have your comfortable illusions shattered on a daily basis, your heroes revealed to be duplicitous and stupid.

re: #16 rightymouse

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Yeah. Larger point = publishing an eight year old gossipy rumor in order to tank McCain.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.

The readers 'got it', Keller. You don't 'get' your readers.

The American public is a lot smarter (and much more cynical) than these self-appointed Media gods think it is.

On the other hand, the story did have a kind of truthiness about it...
/

JWM

re: #56 m

re: #45 rightymouse

Nope. Didn't you know~ it is waaay worse when a conservative does anything or if there is even a hint of a conservative doing anything because they claim to not do anything so they are hypocrites.

Period.

End of story.

^
I actually had that conversation with a lefty friend. ALL politicians claim to not do anything, not just conservative politicians! McCain either!

My liberal friends tell me the same thing: that Dems can't possible be hypocrites or do bad things - only conservatives because Dems don't purport to have moral values.

re: #58 BabbaZee

Yoda looks just like Peter Lorre would if he went through the Phantasm vortex and got small

Let's get small.

/steve

Yaaarrggghhh
*curses*
Ya' beat me to it BabbaZee!
:P

JWM

re: #86 zmdavid

re: #69 Noam Sayin'

Bill Keller sounds like Cognito.

Ever see 'em in the same room?
haha
Actually Cognito makes much more sense than Keller. I feel kind of sorry for him/her (Cognito) - its tough to have your comfortable illusions shattered on a daily basis, your heroes revealed to be duplicitous and stupid.

Keller is incognito

re: #35 Tumulus11

"We believed it was vital for the story to accurately reflect the range of concerns shared by our sources," and to not succumb to "possible qualms over 'sexual innuendo,'" Abramson wrote.

The Times will never succumb to possible qualms over journalistic ethics.

Heh.

Just a meta-note here. What Abramson and Keller are trying to do is hatchet McCain and maintain plausible deniability. In a court of law this would be called hearsay and be not admissable. The counter argument in court is that this is really crucial or privileged in some way. In journalism, in the "shocked" and condescending explanations of Abramson and Keller, either tittilation or agenda are the real crucial and privileged principles in play, it is after all not a court of law, nor a publication of truth - if it fits their agenda, they print it, doh!

I'm smart!
I'm not dumb like everyone says
and I want respect!

#47 NYC REDNECK-
"keller is a complete fool. wonder if he is aware that mccain got a boost from this phony story."

That's the part that worries me. If you consider the timing of the story, it causes the least possible damage to McCain and creates sympathy for him among doubting conservatives... like me :()

TNR claims the Times went with the story because they feared TNR would beat them on the scoop. To me, it's not a stretch to see the NYT actually doing McCain a favor by running it now. In November, this is forgotten news. If a paper wanted to damage McCain, they run this article one week before the election, like W's dui. Whether the Times intended it that way is another story. Taranto makes a similar argument over at opinionjournal.com.

Maybe I'm listening too much to Limbaugh and his ilk.

re: #91 JWM

gm and all that jazz

re: #89 rightymouse

re: #56 m

re: #45 rightymouse

Nope. Didn't you know~ it is waaay worse when a conservative does anything or if there is even a hint of a conservative doing anything because they claim to not do anything so they are hypocrites.

Period.

End of story.

^
I actually had that conversation with a lefty friend. ALL politicians claim to not do anything, not just conservative politicians! McCain either!

My liberal friends tell me the same thing: that Dems can't possible be hypocrites or do bad things - only conservatives because Dems don't purport to have moral values.

Someone needs to ask them: If you don't believe in evil, how can Republicans be evil?

It's not so much that Keller thinks he's smarter than the readers.
That he would actually publish this opinion is arrogant and idiotic.

re: #97 zmdavid

There is only one evil to them...America.

Lionel, a commenter on the Daily News article, had a great response:

Me not dense. Me plenty smart. Me know Times need 3,000 words to say not much. Keller right. Readers need know that McCain careless about reputation. Much big story.Bigger story than Times say vets are much big killers...or Duke players racist rapists. Times much good paper.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”
Keller went on
"The LARGER point of the story is that we are continuing the tradtion of Jason Blair in anonymous sources, innuendo, obfuscation, fiction, doing anything in our power to make sure any and all conservatives and/ or republicans are cast in the worst possible light. Our motto here has been 'once the bell has been rung,,,' So what if the charges are prioven false. We;ll print the retraction in agate type on a far far back page under an ad for kitty litter"

re: #51 rwmofo

Maybe we should contact the FBI and ask them to charge NYT for hate crime against the Republicans?

Just sayin...

re: #100 directorblue

I love it

re: #53 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Still waiting for the front page story on Dianne Feinsteinn's million dollar government contracts given to her husbands company.

And Obama's shady dealings with indicted real estate mogul and Democratic donor Tony Rezo.

re: #62 Maximu§

why thank you

What you get from a Lib like keller in any discussion is a condencending attitude.
Once they run out of logic which is fairly fast, they default to the mocking little smirk.
If you point out that 'You are uninformed & your mocking little smirk looks ridiculous", They then display dialated pupils & stutter & stammer a lot.
It really is fun

Meanwhile, the New Yawk Slimes ignores true graft and corruption when it comes to Democrats.

How very interesting that The New York Times invests the efforts of a cadre of writers to investigate the wisp of a rumor concerning McCain while the Democrat Speaker of the House gets a free ride on such an apparently blatent abuse of power to enrich herself and friends.

And it doesn't end there. Congress pressured Medicare to backdown from the regulations with votes in the House and the Senate. The Sense of the Senate nonbinding resolution was approved unanimously (with no votes recorded therefore). As a Senator, Hillary Clinton would have also voted on this measure that proved a financial boon for Amgen. Senator Clinton is also tied to Amgen.

Bloomberg recently reported that President Clinton's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Ricchetti, now a lobbyist, received a $1.7 million payment to his firm from Amgen. He serves as a bundler for Senator Clinton's campaign. That means she is now receiving financial contributions assembled by a lobbyist at a firm that profited from the success of earning her vote.

One of those contributions was from Howard Moon, a former Pelosi advisor who donated $2,300 to the Clinton campaign a few weeks after Clinton voted to stay the hand of Medicare. In addition, in the days just before and after Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill on Aug. 2nd, 2007 a slew of Amgen executives made almost $30,000 dollars in private donations to the Pelosi campaign.

Barack Obama who claims not to take lobbyist money received over $12,000 in private donations from several Amgen corporate executives (listed as executives, directors, and vice presidents) as revealed by government watch dog group opensecrets.org. The donations listed occured just before the September 4th, 2007 Senate vote on the Sense of the Senate resolution and the day after.

This easily discovered appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Democratic leaders weighs far more heavily than the thin evidence provided against Senator McCain. Maybe the The New York Times has an ethics problem of its' own.

Ya think?!?

Who are the brain police?

re: #79 Sizzlack

re: #77 reine.de.tout

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

No, it's up to your professional writers to make clear whatever the "larger point" of the story was supposed to be. Readers should not have to making guesses.

I thought it was up to the reader to decide what they feel was the larger point. Is that not what journalism is supposed to be? Present the facts in an orderly and professional fashion and let the reader make the determination based on their arguments.

Actually, the point I was trying to make was said more clearly by:

Alpheus 2/23/08 8:14:23 am reply quote report 1

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

In every writing class I have ever taken, I was told that if you write an article and your audience doesn't get your point, it's not their fault, ITS YOUR FAULT! My, how things have changed.

I should read through the comments, I guess, before making my own.

These are the same guys who are "shocked, shocked I tell ya!" that GWB actually won the Presidential election twice...they do not know anyone that voted for him...they live in a sheltered little echo chamber that resonates with the same mindset and sees reality through the warped and distorted prism of liberalism...I actually believe this guy when he blames the readers, he really thinks that is the problem. Meanwhile, here in the real world, the NYT looks sloppy, agenda driven and petty...he is also wondering why the readership is declining, he does not know anyone that disagrees with anything he says, how can that be?

re: #109 reine.de.tout

Ahha. Thank you. And what I meant was that Keller wants to say the readers didn't get it, yet 3,000 people clearly did get and chose to disagree, based on the arguments put forth by the Times writers.

I must agree with New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, anyone who actually buys and reads the NYT is a moron.
As an Expat-Englishman I actually bought the time for a while during my first 3 weeks in the USA. I actually thought that I MUST actually improve, and print things like NEWS, and analysis. However, that never happened.
The NYT is to newspapers what a kite is to a Boeing 747.

re: #97 zmdavid

Someone needs to ask them: If you don't believe in evil, how can Republicans be evil?

I don't think it's so much that my liberal friends think Reps are evil - they just harp on and on about how Reps hold themselves up as paragons of virtue and when they show themselves to be less than that then they are hypocrites. It's worse, in their minds, to be a hypocrite than a moral degenerate.

At least Dan Rather had the sense to make up some damning evidence. On second thought, maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

Mr. Keller,

I suppose we aren't "sophisticated" enough to understand the Times reporting on the Ukrainian famine and we "missed the larger point."

The larger point is you (the Times) is a Gramsician Whore and have been for at least 70 years. You are just not used to have every word that spews from your rectal orifice being fisked. Get used to "your" "larger issues" being put into the correct context.

re: #104 rightymouse

re: #53 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Still waiting for the front page story on Dianne Feinsteinn's million dollar government contracts given to her husbands company.

And Obama's shady dealings with indicted real estate mogul and Democratic donor Tony Rezo.

what are you people bitching about. They did the story exposing national secrets and plans to stop terrorism. Isn't that enough ?

/

re: #112 DocMartyn

I must agree with New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, anyone who actually buys and reads the NYT is a moron.
.

awesome

re: #110 Desert Dog

These are the same guys who are "shocked, shocked I tell ya!" that GWB actually won the Presidential election twice...they do not know anyone that voted for him...they live in a sheltered little echo chamber that resonates with the same mindset and sees reality through the warped and distorted prism of liberalism...I actually believe this guy when he blames the readers, he really thinks that is the problem. Meanwhile, here in the real world, the NYT looks sloppy, agenda driven and petty...he is also wondering why the readership is declining, he does not know anyone that disagrees with anything he says, how can that be?

You are very close to define Fascism. Careful with that ax, Dog!

A fanatic's answer never seems to be "we made a mistake" because, of course, they are never wrong like the rest of the odious world in their eyes...

Guys like Keller think like guys like Keller because they spend their time talking to guys like Keller.
They view themselves as very sophisticated & nuanced. In reality they are intolerant of opposing views and classic examples of insular group think.

re: #114 zmdavid

At least Dan Rather had the sense to make up some damning evidence.

That's next in the NY DNC Times playbook.

he does not know anyone that disagrees with anything he says, how can that be?

Easy ,,, when you go to the same cocktail/ dinner parties with the same people that you've been going with for the past 50 years, and your children go to the same private schools as their children go too, and your entire world consists of your Park Ave condo and your summer home on Nantucket, and your office at the NYT, where it just so happens those same cocktail/ dinner party people summer!

I'm With Stupid!

/ what were those monkey's names?

re: #104 rightymouse

re: #53 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Still waiting for the front page story on Dianne Feinsteinn's million dollar government contracts given to her husbands company.

And Obama's shady dealings with indicted real estate mogul and Democratic donor Tony Rezo.

And if anyone points to this as an example of media bias a leftist will just say they did this to make a profit and not for ideological reasons.

OT: I was scanning the UK papers and stumbled on this highlight:

HOOK-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza has moaned to prison officials that he is not getting enough grub, telling them: “I’m starving in here.”

"...inmates have nicknamed him the “Hungry Hippo”..."

Well, it's not every day that you hear about a starving terrorist hippo.

Snort.

Here's the larger point-

We start with the premise that Lefty just wants free stuff.
Obama is offering free stuff and McCain isn't, therefore... McCain must be demonized so Obama can win the election.
It's simple.

re: #110 Desert Dog

he does not know anyone that disagrees with anything he says, how can that be?

Easy ,,, when you go to the same cocktail/ dinner parties with the same people that you've been going with for the past 50 years, and your children go to the same private schools as their children go too, and your entire world consists of your Park Ave condo and your summer home on Nantucket, and your office at the NYT, where it just so happens those same cocktail/ dinner party people summer!

Keller.

re: #116 Shug

what are you people bitching about. They did the story exposing national secrets and plans to stop terrorism. Isn't that enough ?

Dang. And all along, I thought they did that because they support our troops and were being patriotic and all that stuff.

/

Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Republicans are evil, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Republicans are evil, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Republicans are evil, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib, Republicans are evil, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib, exposing secrets, Bush lied - people died, Abu Ghraib, more secrets, Bush lied again, Abu Ghraib

McCain is a darn cheater! kinda, sorta...

Gee, I wonder why the NYT is quickly becoming a joke?

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

As my dad use to say "thats right son, everyone is out of step but you".

I see elitist liberals are none too happy with Hillary's talk left, live right philosophy:

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Something Stupid

re: #126 DesertSage

I read Keller's response and was left wondering what the larger point he was talking about was? I think you pretty much nailed it thanks for the help.

re: #67
Didn't Keller cheat on his wife?

Why yes he did, he played around with page one, and left her feeling unsatisfied and a little dirty.

re: #104 rightymouse

re: #53 SecretInternetDoucheBag

Still waiting for the front page story on Dianne Feinsteinn's million dollar government contracts given to her husbands company.

And Obama's shady dealings with indicted real estate mogul and Democratic donor Tony Rezo.

The list of ignored Democrat malfeasance is endless.

The NYT - smug, sanctimonious, elitist and completely out of touch with reality, to the bitter end.

"Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Um, what do you mean the point of the story? Are you openly and unabashedly admitting that you run stories based on a point you want to make and slant them that way? I believe that is what you just said. Your story had a point. It was more important to make your point then report fact, your stupid readers should have gotten your point, not questioned the story. Thanks. We thought that was the way you were doing business, appreciate you clarifying it.

FOOLS!

/yes I think that segway actually works

re: #137 Cartman

The NYT - smug, sanctimonious, elitist and completely out of touch with reality, to the bitter end.

And they're damned proud of it, too.

A typical response when the MSM have been caught with their credibility down: "KILL THE MESSENGER!"

re: #113 rightymouse
From Bill Clinton's library website:

Bill Clinton promised as President that his would be the "most ethical administration in the history of the country.” As you explore the pages of this website, you can decide for yourself whether he lived up to that promise.

Of course, I'm sure he would distinguish moral from ethical.

re: #124 SecretInternetDoucheBag

And if anyone points to this as an example of media bias a leftist will just say they did this to make a profit and not for ideological reasons.

Predictable, eh? Profit must only be a good thing to libs when it's the NYT. And when their stock tanks even more, it will be the fault of the nasty Republicans, not The Grey Rag journos for being elitist, liberal pimps.

But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he's just a fool
And he never gives an answer

re: #137 Cartman

The NYT - smug, sanctimonious, elitist and completely out of touch with reality, to the bitter end.

See my No. 128.

Yes, Keller cheated on his wife. But it's okay if he actually does it. McCain didn't actually do it and speculation is always preferable. / Not sure if the pregnancy came before or after the divorce, but can you believe his GF's take on the adultery. Has the nerve to blame it on the Keller's kid. There's a picture of the young woman on their wedding day at the site.

After reading the letter, Keller called Gilbey, a British journalist living in New York, and asked her to coffee at the Times cafeteria. Gilbey, at the time, had a reputation as something of a power-dater; her exes included Senator John Kerry and Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour. An affair ensued, which shocked Keller’s friends. “I felt bad for everyone involved,” says Stephen Engelberg, a former Times reporter. “This was not characteristic behavior at all. I wouldn’t pretend to be Bill’s psychologist, but he didn’t get a red sports car, so ...”

Gilbey offers another explanation, related to Keller’s son. “After he fell in love with Tom, he was just falling in love all over the place—with chairs and tables—and when he fell in love with me he didn’t know whether this was actually real or whether he actually loved me or was in love with the world. And, so, you know, we sort of thank Tom.”

Two years after they met, Gilbey was pregnant, Keller was divorced from Cooper, and he had a new job as managing editor under Joe Lelyveld.

That always puts me in good favor with my customers. Tell them they're stupid because they think the product is bad. Smart.

How much longer will this have to go on before people start asking whether the NYT is really a news reporting organization, or a PAC for Bill Keller's deluded opinions?

This goes beyond those "good intentions" that the path to hell is paved with. This is malicious and arrogant. I hope the share holders get a clue and demand Keller's resignation.

Don't be shtoopid
be a shmatty
come-n- join
de nazi party

The New York Slimes tries to "scarlet letter " McCain...?
Now tell us again how Lewinski was not a big deal mr. editor?

The editor of this rag is a giant douche.

Jeffrey Nihart

Funny. AOL has a poll up:

Captain's Quarters asks: "What will be the biggest effect of the New York Times article on John McCain?"

Hurts McCain - 19%
Helps McCain - 23%
Hurts the NYT - 50%
Helps the NYT - 1%
I dunno; I'm stupid! - 7%

If you go to the link you can find results for your individual state.

attention all rubes
believe everything we say
we're smarter than you

38 BabbaZee
As an enormous Queen fan, that pleases me.

When did t the NYT become so cryptic that they present a "news article" with a secret "larger point"?

I suppose I shouldn't be astonished that the insipidness and complete lack of intellectual integrity I've been seeing in EVERY LIBERAL I'VE DEALT WITH (in the last 10 years) should also define their high profile international spokesmen.

Is Jason Blair still writing there? Just under a different pen name? Or, perhaps Baron Von Munchausen? Walter Mitty? Captain Underpants?

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Where have we heard this before ? (see below)

9/10/04

Drudge has a more complete quote from Dan Rather.

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

/now it's your turn to say good-bye Bill

It's incredible. It's as though the NYTimes has gone to war with its customers, the general public, and the West all at the same time.

They're like a self-contained, roving moronic Death Star.

42 zmdavid

If McCain is so crooked, why did the NYT endorse him last month?

Precisely. The Times had this story before they endorsed him. That's the real scandal here.

re: #142 zmdavid

I've never seen that website before! Thanky! Am going to share with lib friends who are even thinking of Hillary as prez and that includes my hopelessly misguided boss.

re: #62 Maximu§

Why don't all you LGF rednecks STFU! You Beer-swilling,

Sorry, quit in '95

pick-up trucking driving,

Yup, drive a 4wd Toyota

sports watching,

Every weekend during football & baseball seasons.

gun-owning,

Have gun cases & gun cases of em.

child-rearing,

First priority is my daughter.

NASCAR loving,

Sorry, never watched it.

Church going

Every Sunday.

Hill-Billy's!

House is sittin' on top of a hogback on the edge of the Hills.

Yep, pretty well described me.

re: #153 otcconan

Here's one for Keller

Ya know MSM types have a lot in common with much of academia.By that I mean smug elitism.
As an example, I was introduced to a full professor at a local University at a dinner party a couple of years ago. The school had just received a pretty good Bowl Bid.
I congratulated her. She looked like I just slapped her.She proceeded to launch into a screed that football had no place on campus, that the stadium should be converted into a parking garage & that the money saved should be spent on luring a Rhodes Scholar to the University.
Uh Huh. I pointed out that the football program generated a lot more revenue than expenses. That the students took pride in it and that she should consider the Jesuit philosophy of educate the whole person.
It was all very polite, but a look into the elite mind.
She apparently spread her elitism around all night from stories I heard later.

Lost in all this is that The New Republic has managed to humiliate itself once again.

Of course, I mean that from a journalistic standpoint. For most TNR readers, there's no such thing as disgrace while throwing mud at a Republican. If John McCain wasn't such an arrogant dimbulb, he would have long ago noticed the widespread penetration of that belief.

re: #123 BabbaZee

Wow - a political statement from a completely irrelevant (even back in the day) 80's pop band... I thought these groups lost their recording contracts after a decade or two of no sales...

re: #159 rightymouse

re: #142 zmdavid

I've never seen that website before! Thanky! Am going to share with lib friends who are even thinking of Hillary as prez and that includes my hopelessly misguided boss.

It's the Clinton's own site. Irony is lost on them, I'm sure it's full of Clinton propaganda.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

re: #165 zmdavid
Sorry I was fooled!

Here's one for Mr. Keller, as sung by a band I once liked:

Tell Me Lies

re: #164 crashnburn

Unreal, right?

Hey, the Mpls Red Star/Hammer & Sickle has an opening for Publisher since it's last one got booted by a judge for violating his previous employment agreement. So maybe Herr Keller can find a safe haven with that partei organ. However, the partei might prefer that Keller stay in NYC where's he's protected from the huge hoards of illiterate numskulls out in the hinterlands; He can hide under Pinch's massive, bomb proof, desk!

I admit it... schadenfreude

re: #169 BabbaZee

And the record companies actually complain about losing sales... How about finding some talent?

I fail to understand the point of the NYT continued existence.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

mighty US sees the large point
puny weeze must only wear the large pointy hat

English premier league on the tube...ya'll be good

re: #173 pat

The readers are stupid, remember? They just "don't see the larger picture". Once they do "see it", they will realize that rag is not fit for bird cage duty.

This is rich. Business Week's 2005 interview with Keller:

One of the reasons that we need to pay attention is because the environment in which we operate has changed, [with] the proliferation of pseudo-news programming on cable TV, on the Internet in particular, and on the radio -- stuff that's really partisanship, gossip, propaganda, vaudeville masquerading as news.

We all live in that environment, and it creates the impression that what everybody does is more entertainment or propaganda than news. At the same time, it makes what we do a lot more important.

[Link: www.businessweek.com...]

re: #173 pat

I fail to understand the point of the NYT continued existence.

To publish the DNC talking points. If pres. Barry gets in they will have no more to talk about other than "CHANGE AND HOPE"!. That will be the headline for the next 4 years.

re: #177 David Simon

He oughta know

Well, let's not be too hard on Bill. It takes years of training and hard work to imagine yourself a superior being.

I feel really stupid right now (maybe I should sign up for the Times).
Here's Clinton's real library page:
[Link: www.clintonlibrary.gov...]
Of course it would be .gov the cheapskate!

Here's the one trashing him:
[Link: www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com...]
(probably more accurate)

Typical Liberal reaction, If you don't agree, your stupid!

Guys like Keller consider concepts like nationalism to be a quaint relic of the past.
American Exceptionalism? Come on, that is scoffed at, at fine dinner parties.
Us Troops?Well, fine for delivering Tsunami relief, but not much else.
Red States? Come on , uneducated boobs in Jesus Land
Israel? The greatest impediment to world peace along with the US.
Islam? Just another religion
Islamic Terrorists?Impoverished victims of US Imperialism
Most of us?Unsophisticated cretins without dental plans that need to be forced to do the right thing.

re: #95 brainsample

#47 NYC REDNECK-
"keller is a complete fool. wonder if he is aware that mccain got a boost from this phony story."

That's the part that worries me. If you consider the timing of the story, it causes the least possible damage to McCain and creates sympathy for him among doubting conservatives... like me :()

TNR claims the Times went with the story because they feared TNR would beat them on the scoop. To me, it's not a stretch to see the NYT actually doing McCain a favor by running it now. In November, this is forgotten news. If a paper wanted to damage McCain, they run this article one week before the election, like W's dui. Whether the Times intended it that way is another story. Taranto makes a similar argument over at opinionjournal.com.

Maybe I'm listening too much to Limbaugh and his ilk.

i have no idea what the nyt was up to. whatever it was, mccain got a boost. he looks good. the nyt looks bad. (as usual.) btw, i'll be voting for him, even tho limbaugh is acting like a knuckle head. (i do like rush)

re: #165 zmdavid

It's the Clinton's own site. Irony is lost on them, I'm sure it's full of Clinton propaganda.

That was spoof site. And a good one too. This is the real Clinton Library website.

re: #58 BabbaZee

Yoda looks just like Peter Lorre would if he went through the Phantasm vortex and got small

When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not.

re: #181 zmdavid

Lol! Beat me to it.

re: #62 Maximu§

Why don't all you LGF rednecks STFU! You Beer-swilling, pick-up trucking driving, sports watching, gun-owning, child-rearing, NASCAR loving, Church going Hill-Billy's!

Obviously, your not sophisticated enough to understand that Mr. Keller and the NYT's staff is far above you and they know whats good for you.

/sarc

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

Oh, dear! I've only got three of those covered; does that mean I can't be a lizardoid anymore?

Guess which three... heehee!

Keller cheated on his wife.

Anyone ask about that?

Thats OK..He's on the left side

re: #189 Ben Hur

Yes, they made a movie about it: Brokeback Mountain

I have got to get out of this damn newspaper business. The public is just too stupid to understand the point we are trying to cram down their throats. I wonder if Hillary has a position for me in the white house?

Bill Keller

re: #178 VegasRick

...

they will have no more to talk about other than "CHANGE AND HOPE"!. That will be the headline for the next 4 years.

Until the next, inevitable major terror event on U.S. soil, courtesy of a pseudo-socialistic presidential stewardship.

Eros: Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

- Plan 9 From Outer Space

re: #146 ciaospirit

Thanks for the info on Keller. Amazing. Wow!

I guess we are all just too stupid to take our own side in a debate. After all, turning over the reins of the last free country on the planet to either an ongoing criminal enterprise or a black nationalist is just the proper thing to do, according to the NYT.

re: #192 Racer X
Maybe he can create those clean, green jobs Hillary was promising

Unless moralizing belongs exclusively to the right.

re: #186 Noam Sayin'
lol

re: #194 vinegar joe

BLINK!

This "point of the story" argument to cover their attack on John McCain is just so laughable. If I wrote a story on Obama that was "about" how enthralling he is and mentioned staffers concerns that he was "too close" to some of his female followers, they'd run me out of the business.

Hmm. Getting run out of the business for biased libel, one can only hope...

#184 NYC Redneck -
" have no idea what the nyt was up to. whatever it was, mccain got a boost. he looks good. the nyt looks bad. (as usual.) btw, i'll be voting for him, even tho limbaugh is acting like a knuckle head. (i do like rush)"

McCain wasn't even my third choice, but he's what we got and as Victor Davis Hanson says, there is an ocean of difference between McCain and either Hillary or Obama.

I have always liked Rush, too, but I strongly question his judgment and motives re McCain. Coulter's notion that we'd be better off with a Dem in 2008 is more than delusional.

John Gibson has been making a lot of sense on this issue.

Later. Time for my lobotomy.

WLGF out

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Sounds eerily like "The ends justify the means" to me.

re: #187 rightymouse
The one you found is .org, so they do have a non gov site
[Link: www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org...]

#162
Ya know MSM types have a lot in common with much of academia. By that I mean smug elitism."

Could you please separate the humanities, or at least people who work in Departments with the words "Studies" or "Discourse" in them and people who actually work very hard in the sciences. You actually find little smug elitism in physics, maths, chemistry and biochemistry departments; just very hard working scientists trying to understand the way the university works, one bit at a time.

re: #206 DocMartyn

I'm hoping you meant 'how the universe works' and not the 'university.' PIYF

re: #205 zmdavid

re: #187 rightymouse
The one you found is .org, so they do have a non gov site
[Link: www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org...]

Yep. I prefer the first link you had though. The irony is too rich regarding those two.

This front page Talk To the Newsroom piece of drivel was another opportunity for Keller to bash McCain. Notice that he not only uses this platform to recapitulate the entire non-scandal, but actually ups the ante by insisting that:

Perhaps the defining narrative of Senator McCain's career is his long, determined recovery from scandal.

Keller is out of his friggin' mind.

Knowing that sex sells, Keller's paper fills a story with titillating innuendo, and professes shock that the readers didn't show more interest in whether or not McCain accepted free rides on a corporate jet eight years ago. Not only is the story very thin, but without the sex angle nobody would have read past the first paragraph.

Keller, you ignorant slut.

The story was an attempt to drive a larger wedge between McCain and conservative GOPers. Unfortunately for the NYT, conservatives do no care a damn what they allege. Conservatives believe everything it prints is a lie except national security leaks.

The fact that John Edwards was fooling around on his wife while she under went Chemo was of so little interest that the NYT could find no reason to publish the same.

re: #94 BabbaZee

I'm smart!
I'm not dumb like everyone says
and I want respect!

Oh Fredo - you are such a knucklehead!

With upfront apologies, but I have the old Dr.Pepper commercial in my head.
So here goes, wait I have to clear my throat.ok

I swoon foe Obama and I'm proud
I'm one of a huge mindless crowd.
I'M Obama ,shes Obama, Hes Obama.
Wouldn't you like to be Obama too?

See?I really did need to apologise

The law of unintended consequences bites the Times in the butt.
And, I, for one, love it.

Sure moderate republicans supported McCain, but NOW, thanks to the NYTimes front page slime a whole lot of conservative republicans do, too!
Hey, I've been saying this about poor ethnic non-muslims in Asia, Africa and Europe for a long time: Where Are They Going To Run Away To?
We were left with no alternative by the Times.
We became whole-hearted defenders of McCain.
That's less than one full step below being full supporters of McCain.

McCains been a Senator for 30 years

Hes probably met a lobbyist or two

A brave strategy for the Times

Some leftist echo-chamber Radio Air America male spokesperson was on Fox News around 9:15am EST today saying we missed the REAL point of the NYT story, that McCain is corrupt, etc., repeating the Keating Scandal story with a new twist.

It IS true McCain was friendly with his good friends Bill Keller and the editorial board of the NYT which endorsed McCain in January over squeaky clean Mitt Romney.

I am enjoying McCain have to pretend to be mad at his liberal friends who normally think he's a great Maverick kind of guy and fawn all over him for being so anti-Republican, until he runs against a democrat.

So the lefty knives are out for McCain now, but it's not personal--they just want White House power back in their court.

re: #12 Alpheus

I beg to differ. We are the readership and the people who pay their salaries. We aren't buying their crap and are showing them we are dissatisfied with their product. Because they will not change their propagandist ways, we are forcing them to restructure and lay people off.

The larger point of the story was to point out to any Democrat that thought the Times endorsement of McCain meant he was a possible suitable alternative to Obama or Clinton, that he's not. It was the Times way of un-endorsing him. After all, have they ever done anything similar to Bill Clinton? A guy with a million shady deals in his past?

Good morning Lizards...

re: #219 FredWM

That just about sums it all up.

re: #206 DocMartyn

[...] just very hard working scientists trying to understand the way the university works, one bit at a time.

University or Universe?

They supported McCain before because they considered him the most liberal Republican. They now attack him because they have the potential for getting a Marxist into the presidency.

As for claiming that the NY Times is little more than a house organ for the Left, one would think that such pronouncements would be well redundant by now. Even the NY Times staff admits to it on occasion.

#207 cookielady

re: #206 DocMartyn

I'm hoping you meant 'how the universe works' and not the 'university.' PIYF"

The Universe only has about 10^122 particles in it, most University Administrators can have the same number of plan's and can generate an equal number of vision statements before breakfast. Compared with University politics, the Universe is a easy. For instance, why can a Humanities professor get tenure with five peer reviewed journal publications, but a biochemist needs at least 25, and 50 is not unusual.

Keller just makes Iowahawk's job way too easy for him.

On the open thread this am. i jokingly posted "Bill Keller to readers-you are morons". The Times is really this stupid.

re: #158 Luigi

42 zmdavid

If McCain is so crooked, why did the NYT endorse him last month?

The Times had this story before they endorsed him. That's the real scandal here.

Concur totally. It's not merely a smear against McCain; it's a smear against the entire Republican party -- to endorse a particular candidate for his party's nomination when you have no love at all for that party, knowing full well that you will very soon follow up by smearing said candidate.

This is detestable malfeasance on the part of the New York Times and a major-league journalistic dirty trick, using a story that has nothing to offer but a web of 100% pure innuendo, peppered with sleazy insinuations, from front to back.

To the NYT editors and managers. There is no doubt that you feel strong emotions against conservatives, even Senator McCain who has many times voted his conscience and voted liberal and received "heavy fire" from conservative critics does not constrain the NYT hatchet job against McCain with no verifiable witnesses or even named witnesses to the acts alleged against Senator McCain. Unfortunately for the NYT's and lefty liberals in general, the average American citizen is not near as dumb as you perceive, and the NYT's image as respectable media is approximately on par with the National Enquirer and Sixty minutes. Good luck with your stockholder retention drive. Your stockholders have zero voting interest and you continue your left-wing death-spiral downward with subscriptions and profits to oblivion. NYT will be bankrupt in five years.

No, I don't think anybody missed the point of the story, Keller just didn't realize how transparent he and the NYT are.

The Republican party let the media pick its candidate this time, a candidate who doesn't just reach across the aisle, he's done a full half-gainer over it firmly into the most leftist side of that aisle on numerous occasions. He opposed a number of Bush policies quite publicly, so he was deemed a media darling and the media did their best to get out the vote for him as the Republican nominee, even getting moderates and democrats to cross party lines in states where that is allowed in order to vote for him in the primaries.

But did anybody really believe that the media elites actually want McCain to *win*? Or that any of them would actually *vote* for him? That is the real point of the story, this is the beginning of the media undoing of McCain to assure a democrat victory in November. This first story was weak, the media knows it is weak, but it is an opening shot across the bow, the beginning of what will become a full-fledged barrage of McCain criticism, deep background stories, and character assassination from now through the election. All through this, McCain will be exhibiting this deer in the headlights look of disbelief as his former media buds draw the knives from behind their backs and proceed to slice and dice him. Look at his first response to the Times story; he's "disappointed". People who opposed his amnesty for illegal aliens bill were nativists, bigots, and racists. But he's only "disappointed" with the Times for this bit of character assassination.

I wonder when he's going to actually get it.

/This November, no matter who wins, we lose. We probably just lose a little less with McCain. The congresscritter are probably the most important of any time in the history of this country. If the Dems maintain control or gain more power during this election cycle, coupled with a liberal in the White House, we are headed for real rough water.

re: #227 Edouard

re: #158 Luigi

42 zmdavid

If McCain is so crooked, why did the NYT endorse him last month?

The Times had this story before they endorsed him. That's the real scandal here.

Concur totally. It's not merely a smear against McCain; it's a smear against the entire Republican party -- to endorse a particular candidate for his party's nomination when you have no love at all for that party, knowing full well that you will very soon follow up by smearing said candidate.

This is detestable malfeasance on the part of the New York Times and a major-league journalistic dirty trick, using a story that has nothing to offer but a web of 100% pure innuendo, peppered with sleazy insinuations, from front to back.

* * *
It's too bad so many voting people in the early primary states bought the cheap 'n'easy NYT endorsement of McCain--who bragged to Mitt Romney about McCain's NYT and Boston Globe and other endorsements.

Smart voters would have done their homework about candidates somewhere other than at the NYT and WashPost.

re: #45 rightymouse

There are rumors flying around about Hillary and her assistant. Will the NYT print any of that?

That is an excellent point.

It's a gud we have Mary K 'splain'n us windowlickers stuff.

Desperate man, in desperate times for a desperate Times.

Sumbody help me i cant not understand Kellers bigger point. i no get dan rather point on his dokument and too i not understand jon carry joke about getting stuk in irak ?
Respond soon ,I need to go to Walmart, buy a chainsaw, fill it with gas from Exxon, cut down some trees to board up an abortion clinic while I'm listening to Rush .

"The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it." ... Nope, the problem is that the NYT doesn't get it, and by "IT" I mean subscriptions, readers, sales, revenue, etc.

Best regards Keller you obtuse muck raker.

"just very hard working scientists trying to understand the way the university works, one bit at a time."

Heh heh, your typo is a pretty funny concept in its own right

And the larger point is... (drumroll)

...if we endorse a Republican in the primary, it only means that we think we have enough to destroy him before the general election. (cymbals)

Oh, and even if we don't, we'll just make it up. (ka-thump)

Thank you, I'll be here all evening. Try the veal.

To the The New York Times (aka The Filthy LIBeral Anti-American Propagandist Fishwrap) "Editors", lackeys and yes-men:

It's only a matter of time 'till the festering carcass of the "Old Grey Lady" is completely devoured by leftist maggots (see Air America Radio) and other useful idiots. I find your pathetic attempts at Shabby Leftist Journalism amusing, and laugh at your foolishness.

The ghost of Edward R. Murrow is turning in his grave in response to your weak-minded attempts at "Goebbel-ising" the current election.

re: #234 n in wi

Sumbody help me i cant not understand Kellers bigger point. i no get dan rather point on his dokument and too i not understand jon carry joke about getting stuk in irak ?
Respond soon ,I need to go to Walmart, buy a chainsaw, fill it with gas from Exxon, cut down some trees to board up an abortion clinic while I'm listening to Rush .

Me wunner if jonh MaCane get larjer poynt after he think Nu York Tyms be his fren and brag about id in debaet lyke fool. Jonh, they no be reel fren. Not lik you. Unnerstan?

re: #188 cookielady

re: #62 Maximu§

Why don't all you LGF rednecks STFU! You Beer-swilling, pick-up trucking driving, sports watching, gun-owning, child-rearing, NASCAR loving, Church going Hill Billy's!

Obviously, your not sophisticated enough to understand that Mr. Keller and the NYT's staff is far above you and they know whats good for you.

/sarc

Maximu§
3/11 ACR

Oh, dear! I've only got three of those covered; does that mean I can't be a lizardoid anymore?

Guess which three... heehee!

Ok, Ill take a guess.

Beer swilling...Child rearing...Church going...cookie-Mak'n

The NYT's endorses John McCain one month, and then the next month, has a front page smear job that is nothing but lies, from "unnamed sources".

Even Bob Bennett, Democrat, who investigated McCain during the Keating scandal, and found him completely innocent, said this current smear job by the NYT's is a lie.

It's no longer just BDS that the left suffers from, but "Anything That Goes Against The Leftist Agenda Derangement Syndrome."

re: #70 m

re: #62 Maximu§

Why don't all you LGF rednecks STFU! You Beer-swilling, pick-up trucking driving, sports watching, gun-owning, child-rearing, NASCAR loving, Church going Hill-Billy's!

Yeee haa!

>:- [

/them thar's fightin' words!

/i don't drink beer!

;-)

OK, how bout some White-Lightning? Why thats all I drink now-a-days since I got my cousin Mary-Loo pregnant and I got laid off at that asbestos factory up yonder.

Keller is using the Emperor's New Clothes tactic, what he's saying is sort of: if you don't see what I see (which isn't really there), you're stupid. I see that tactic used all the time by the left, it's used in art as much as politics and I find it very irritating especially because it works on a lot of people.

The smear of cheating on his wife is the point of the story, that's why the first paragraph says this:

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers. A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

If that wasn't the point then they would have tacked that paragraph on later and not started with it.

IMO reading the New York Times prose style is like chewing tinfoil. That's why I never read it even though we got it delivered when I was growing up. Probably better that I didn't.

"independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot,” according to Keller.

Perhaps this arrogant fool hasn't yet realized that the majority of people on all sides of the political spectrum want honest and objective reporting, and saw this incredibly stupid story for what it is, a deliberate smear of a presidential candidate on the opposite side of the aisle from Keller the fool.

Bankers.. stock brokers.. doctors.. all considered elite professions for the wealthy.. but guess which one is the most elite for the super rich of the super rich.. journalist

/ whats the price of a bottle of milk TIMES owners?

re: #194 vinegar joe

Eros: Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

- Plan 9 From Outer Space

Eros AKA New York Times executive editor Bill Keller: [with disgust] Stronger. You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Jeff Trent AKA Readers of the New York Times: That's all I'm taking from you! [pistol-whips Eros/Bill Keller upside the head]

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

--- Public Editor of The New York Times.
See today's NYT. It's in the comment by the public editor on the McCain story, but it's not the lead paragraph. Dig and you will find it, far into the article.
[Link: www.NewYorkTimes.com...]

A most pathetic snub by the NYT. The burden of communication is on the sender of the message, not the recipient. If nobody got the point the NYT should re-evaluate its presentation. But why expect them to behave logically or rationally at this late date.

Was not there some wacademic reserch that said that if one supports Republicans one is intelectually inferior?

I guess the uber intelligent NYT editor have not figured out the fact that academia does not have customers.

OTOH, there might be some customers for the above research, like uber intelligent self proclaimed "liberals" with self-esteem problems, i.e. feel good junkies.

re #248, here is a link to what the public editor of the NYT (an ombudsman for the readers), Clark Hoyt, wrote
(this is the second online page of the article). Look for the above paragraph, which is what Fox News quoted today.
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Good for Clark Hoyt for pointing out this ridiculous hit-and-run explosion launched at the obvious Republican nominee for president, without any evidence that would even be good enough for the National Enquirer.

(National Enquirer said so, that they would not have gone with this story based on the lack of evidence to support it. That conversation was reported on TV by Mort Zuckerman, who runs US News and World Report, who of course also would not have gone with the story based on the lack of evidence).

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

It's the communicator's responsibility that the recipient understand the meaning of the message...anything else is a failure by the communicator...so the Times can't communicate, and they tell you as much...

Note to history...if you believe everything the Times says is the truth, you too, are also a fool.

Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us...

"what was, to us," Otherwise known as groupthink. In the case of the NYT inbred liberal groupthink.

And the "fake but accurate" cart rolls on...

Well I don't like McCain, but I think the NYT did a cheap shot against him and now against their readers by saying they are stupid.

Now with that said, I still won't vote for McCain no matter how many times he quotes Reagan. His actions speak far louder than his current words. I don't give out sympathy votes.

Be safe and well all.

Bill Keller, Executive Editor of The New York Times, was ignorant.

He was ignorant of the fact that the article was hinting that the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States was having extra-marital sex with an attractive lobbyist.

He was ignorant of the fact that this was a false piece of malicious gossip which if accepted would destroy the career of Senator McCain and end his chances at the presidency.

He was ignorant of the fact that there was absolutely no evidence supporting this false piece of malicious gossip.

He was ignorant of the journalistic principle that the evidence needed to run a piece of malicious gossip has to be proportional to the consequences of running that story.

He was ignorant of the fact that The New York Times seeks a reputation that is above that of the supermarket tabloids.

Bill Keller, Executive Editor of The New York Times, was ignorant of what the article was implying, ignorant of the readership of the NYT, ignorant of the lack of evidence in the article, ignorant of basic journalistic practice, and ignorant of the standards that the NYT wants to maintain.

Perhaps his ignorance does not make him suitable for the job that he holds.

He is also unaware of the arrogance that he is showing in the aftermath of the blowup he caused. He is like a person who strikes a match in a room full of explosive gases, and then blames the chemical properties of the gases instead of his own ignorance of those properties.

That's rich, Keller claiming his readers are stupid. I actually went to high school with Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger and the guy was a complete moron. He FLUNKED OUT! If he hadn't inherited his job he wouldn't have gotten as far in journalism as Jimmhy Olsen. That is why the once most-respected newspaper in America is now a pathetic and not very funny joke.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.” -Bill Keller

Mr. Keller, we are well aware of the larger point to this and a hundred other similar stories in the NYT: to harm America in any way you can.

For those keeping score at home, the New York Times says we should be supporting the Democrat candidate (whoever she will be) because the Republican candidate who just happens to be largely the most responsible for bringing down Jack Abramoff had a lobbyist in his entourage that is too good looking for Bill Clinton to think he had a chance at a blow job from.

Did I miss any other larger points?

The larger point being..."we will do anything to get a democrat elected"

The point on the top of Keller's head, that's what I don't get. The next person that tries to tell me the NYT doesn't have a liberal bias, I'm going to scream.

re: #1 zmdavid

Ha ha, that made my day.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

Fight on you socialist Democrats – Fight On – Hurrah Hurrah.

/NYT creed

Total joke. The emperor has no clothes, and has been naked for a while.

Ooooh he's like a master of logic! Did I do that right?

The NYT waited until John McCain was certain to get the nomination prior to printing this story. Some wonder about the timing. I think the Gray Lady needs a new motto
"Print no slime before its time" NYS The New York Slimes

I love how they endorse this idiot, and conservatives don't seem to care. Then they run this and everyone is pissed. Hilarious.

Fake ... BUT ACCURATE, you idiots. That's all you need to know.

In one story, I read that: 'well, you know there is a lot of info that the reporters can't tell, that is,there is a lot more out there...about this episode. The reporters just couldn't get anyone to go on record...'
Hello, McCain..is this what reaching across the aisle means?

/he looked terrible today-beaten dn, squinting his eyes at the Q and A like he was trying to read the lips. Is he hard of hearing?

Anyway, I wonder if Mc cain is going to campaign at all against the donks? Knee-them-in-the-groin campaigning
I don't see it. I think it is goig to be a lot of "Heh heh heh,there he goes that whipper snapper...