Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« She's Got You, Babe | Main | Al "Mr. Warmth" Gore »

May 09, 2005

Comments

MachoNachos

Some people have a hard time grasping the concept that we don't want the Times giving us more articles in the religion section, we want our views to have a fair hearing in the main section. Geez.

I think, also, that someone ought to alert the FEC - the shared obtuseness that the NYTimes and the DNC share over this point is enough to establish collaboration in my mind.

richard mcenroe

Well, gosh darn it, if Bush hadn't won two elections, and insisted on doing stuff, they woulnd't HAVE to lie about him! So of course it's Bush's fault.

Les Nessman

NYT:"We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself."

'No longer' sufficient? Meaning that at one time it WAS sufficient? Since when was 'Because I said so, that's why!' EVER a sufficient argument for a newspaper?


NYT:"In today's media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility."

No, NYT; your credibility ALWAYS was damaged by your minimal responses. It's just that now it's harder to cover it up. Now more people have more access to more information to fact-check your ass.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame