Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story

mimo2005 · 04-30-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Since The New York Times reported on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on April 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not mentioned the report. By contrast, during their April 28 evening news broadcasts, all three networks reported on the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290005

simpswr · 04-30-2008, 04:54 PM

Miley is much easier to look at than those retired generals . .

mimo2005 · 04-30-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simpswr

Miley is much easier to look at than those retired generals . .

lol , good one.

Tumbleweed36 · 04-30-2008, 05:36 PM

I think you can tie it directly to the fact that the NYT is losing subscribers like rats off a sinking ship. They have done so much damage by biased reporting for the left, that even if it is a true story (which I don't doubt), no one wants to be on the same boat as the NYT because of their lack of creditability. That includes subscribers and other news sources that don't want to be on the slide with the NYT.

Does that make it right for others to ignore it?....nope, does not. However, it is also not correct that when the NYT does a "fake" or unresearched story that is left leaning like they constantly do and get caught, the admission of failure is buried in the twenty-fifth page after they splashed the original story all over the front page. Who the heck wants to associate with a news source that does that? Not me, said I.

yustr · 04-30-2008, 05:45 PM

Except for giving the NYT credit for exposing their, at least they could report that the Pentagon has canceled the briefings ( HERE)

But then they'd have to admit their own failure to do their job - and nobody wants to admit that.

**Chode** · 04-30-2008, 08:34 PM

So, Tumbleweed, how many subscribers has NYT lost this past year? Is this figure higher than the percentage other newspapers are seeing? Actually, if you look at the figures for the New York Times' website, I'd say they are ripping the world a new one.

Tumbleweed36 · 05-01-2008, 04:20 AM

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/rec..._id=1003795951

**Chode** · 05-03-2008, 05:30 PM

Good link, TW, but once again, we already know that the print circulation of all newspapers is declining. Given the jump in online viewers, I just can't bring myself to assume that the Times is dead, dying, or significantly worse off than most major papers. Based on figures in your own link.

Go back and look at your own link once more. Sure, MediaWeek cites a big drop for circulation of the Sunday NYT edition, but the drop in daily circulation is 3.8 %, as opposed to the 9.2 drop for the Sunday edition.

How to explain the Sunday numbers. Try this on for size: "According to New York Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty, the company had budgeted for the declines in Sunday and daily circulation. Two-thirds of the Sunday loss stemmed from the elimination of bonus days and third-party bulk copies. Also: the paper had a single copy and home delivery price increase in July. The paper also focused on growing "highly profitable circulation," she noted."

The same article cites declines in the conservative New York Post of "over 3 percent daily and more than 8 percent on Sunday." So this rightie news rag really doesn't look much better, does it? In fact trying to compare the changes in circulation (both daily and Sunday editions) for most of the papers in the story doesn't appear to me to show any patterns that match the paper's political orientations.

Finally, let's note that changes in circulation of the Sunday NY Times don't correlate to overall changes in subscribers for the newspaper. Typical NeoCon games with numbers. You just might want to go back and check out that jump in the NY Times online readership. Next thing you know, Tumbleweed, you and Wubbya are going to be telling us that gasoline prices are high because oil is high. More indisputable numbers with no information content.

mimo2005 · 05-06-2008, 10:54 PM

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro and three dozen colleagues have sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General calling for an investigation of this "propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public."

http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2...IG_5_2_08.html

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

bry623 · 05-11-2008, 05:22 PM

The initial post cracks me up. It should read:

The most liberal print media in America is mad at the liberal TV media.

Wah

04-30-2008, 04:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
simpswr hardware tech Join Date: May 2007 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 2,588 OS: XP, Vista	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story Miley is much easier to look at than those retired generals . . __________________ Rich MemTest86 \| BIOS \| BenchTest \| Spyware Cleaning \| How to Post a Screen shot

04-30-2008, 05:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Tumbleweed36 Asst Manager Hardware Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,063 OS: XP Professional	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story I think you can tie it directly to the fact that the NYT is losing subscribers like rats off a sinking ship. They have done so much damage by biased reporting for the left, that even if it is a true story (which I don't doubt), no one wants to be on the same boat as the NYT because of their lack of creditability. That includes subscribers and other news sources that don't want to be on the slide with the NYT. Does that make it right for others to ignore it?....nope, does not. However, it is also not correct that when the NYT does a "fake" or unresearched story that is left leaning like they constantly do and get caught, the admission of failure is buried in the twenty-fifth page after they splashed the original story all over the front page. Who the heck wants to associate with a news source that does that? Not me, said I. __________________ ----------

04-30-2008, 05:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,344 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story Except for giving the NYT credit for exposing their, at least they could report that the Pentagon has canceled the briefings ( HERE) But then they'd have to admit their own failure to do their job - and nobody wants to admit that. __________________ I'm helping in the fight against Cancer, YOU CAN TOO find out how; CLICK HERE The conservative right is neither. (With apologies to the moral majority[sic])

04-30-2008, 08:34 PM	#6 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 554 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story So, Tumbleweed, how many subscribers has NYT lost this past year? Is this figure higher than the percentage other newspapers are seeing? Actually, if you look at the figures for the New York Times' website, I'd say they are ripping the world a new one. __________________ Sweet!

05-01-2008, 04:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
Tumbleweed36 Asst Manager Hardware Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,063 OS: XP Professional	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/rec..._id=1003795951 __________________ ----------

05-03-2008, 05:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 554 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story Good link, TW, but once again, we already know that the print circulation of all newspapers is declining. Given the jump in online viewers, I just can't bring myself to assume that the Times is dead, dying, or significantly worse off than most major papers. Based on figures in your own link. Go back and look at your own link once more. Sure, MediaWeek cites a big drop for circulation of the Sunday NYT edition, but the drop in daily circulation is 3.8 %, as opposed to the 9.2 drop for the Sunday edition. How to explain the Sunday numbers. Try this on for size: "According to New York Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty, the company had budgeted for the declines in Sunday and daily circulation. Two-thirds of the Sunday loss stemmed from the elimination of bonus days and third-party bulk copies. Also: the paper had a single copy and home delivery price increase in July. The paper also focused on growing "highly profitable circulation," she noted." The same article cites declines in the conservative New York Post of "over 3 percent daily and more than 8 percent on Sunday." So this rightie news rag really doesn't look much better, does it? In fact trying to compare the changes in circulation (both daily and Sunday editions) for most of the papers in the story doesn't appear to me to show any patterns that match the paper's political orientations. Finally, let's note that changes in circulation of the Sunday NY Times don't correlate to overall changes in subscribers for the newspaper. Typical NeoCon games with numbers. You just might want to go back and check out that jump in the NY Times online readership. Next thing you know, Tumbleweed, you and Wubbya are going to be telling us that gasoline prices are high because oil is high. More indisputable numbers with no information content. __________________ Sweet! Last edited by Chode : 05-03-2008 at 05:32 PM.

05-06-2008, 10:54 PM	#9 (permalink)
mimo2005 Manager, The Relaxation Room/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 10,255 OS: xp	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro and three dozen colleagues have sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General calling for an investigation of this "propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public." http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2...IG_5_2_08.html Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/ __________________ TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed saepe cadendo"

05-11-2008, 05:22 PM	#10 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,235 OS: winxp pro sp2	Re: Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story The initial post cracks me up. It should read: The most liberal print media in America is mad at the liberal TV media. Wah __________________ FOLLOW THE RULES!