Boycott the NY times!
I've been reading the NYtimes online for awhile now, since
the time when I worked in south america in '99 and '00 and
my only other source for news was "the economist". There
has always been a slant in the Times and you have to take what
is written there with a grain of salt in the same way the newspapers in
south lousiana have to be adjusted slightly leftward to see reality,
the NYTimes can be read and gleaned for facts, while discarding
the veneer of slant.
I'm not going to do that anymore until their policy of
spilling state secrets on a daily basis ends. Every time I click there,
I'm giving them pageviews that they can use to sell advertising.
They don't deserve that, they are selling out our country to sell
papers by publishing classified information that I don't really need
to know. I want to watch the history holovision channel in 30 years
and find out the real scoop about how we defeated Islamofacism, not
hear about the great miraculous conversion from the local imam
on a hot houston friday afternoon. So fuck 'em. They are out of my
bookmarks.
They are cowards, they won't print the mohammed cartoons because
they know the other side's response...a car bomb in their lobby.
They'll print leaked information then hide under the protection of
our freedoms. If they had printed the mohammed cartoons, then I
could believe them..."fair/balanced, yada yada, fuck you, yada, it's
our right". But instead they pick and choose their battles not based
on the principle of freedom of speech, but on their opponents. They
fire and then duck behind cover, always moving toward some political
goal while attacking the bastion of america.
Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose but they won't win with my
eyeballs looking at their webpage. No links, no links to posts with
links to the times. Oh yeah, "attica!, attica! attica!"
(not sure what the chant is for, but it seemed more appropriate then
'we shall overcome')
the time when I worked in south america in '99 and '00 and
my only other source for news was "the economist". There
has always been a slant in the Times and you have to take what
is written there with a grain of salt in the same way the newspapers in
south lousiana have to be adjusted slightly leftward to see reality,
the NYTimes can be read and gleaned for facts, while discarding
the veneer of slant.
I'm not going to do that anymore until their policy of
spilling state secrets on a daily basis ends. Every time I click there,
I'm giving them pageviews that they can use to sell advertising.
They don't deserve that, they are selling out our country to sell
papers by publishing classified information that I don't really need
to know. I want to watch the history holovision channel in 30 years
and find out the real scoop about how we defeated Islamofacism, not
hear about the great miraculous conversion from the local imam
on a hot houston friday afternoon. So fuck 'em. They are out of my
bookmarks.
They are cowards, they won't print the mohammed cartoons because
they know the other side's response...a car bomb in their lobby.
They'll print leaked information then hide under the protection of
our freedoms. If they had printed the mohammed cartoons, then I
could believe them..."fair/balanced, yada yada, fuck you, yada, it's
our right". But instead they pick and choose their battles not based
on the principle of freedom of speech, but on their opponents. They
fire and then duck behind cover, always moving toward some political
goal while attacking the bastion of america.
Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose but they won't win with my
eyeballs looking at their webpage. No links, no links to posts with
links to the times. Oh yeah, "attica!, attica! attica!"
(not sure what the chant is for, but it seemed more appropriate then
'we shall overcome')
Comments
That's quite a post!
They call it an "angle" but it's still a slant all the same. I agree.