Skip to main content

View Diary: Miller thread (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good points (4.00)
    but I differ on the extent that the NY Times has a whorish management and ownership that fears upsetting the Bush Administration and their conservative corporate advertisers.

    I believe there are many upper managers at The Times that will encourage the newspaper to soften the truth and even tell some lies here and there to assure the GOP power elite that they are not trying to "take them down".

    Standing on principle?  I believe that the NY Times was feigning a "stand on principle" because its management fears Republican corporate (and underhanded) retaliation more than they fear the Dems and the public at large.  How convenient it was to be shouting support for the First Amendment and shield laws in a situation that type of legislation was not designed to protect.

    "Freedom of the Press" is protected when the press is speaking truth to power, not when the press is protecting the power elite's ability to crush all dissent.  

    The NY Time's stated position in this case, was silly and disingenuous, not principled.  The Times' management were worried only about the profitability of their decisions for the newspaper.  Despite its rhetoric, the Times was not concerned about what was best for the U.S. Constitution nor the American people.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:11:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site