OK, I know there are National Security implications, but aren't there always going to be national security implications now that Bush has promoted a policy of endless war on terror? Did they ask how serious the implications were, how grave the violations of the law were? No, they completely covered it up right before people were to decide if this man, this administration, were capable and honest enough
"to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."
Finding out after the election that they refused to run a story on Bush cheating at the debates by wearing a wire is mild by comparison. Although the combination of these two show where their sympathies lie despite their editorial pages.
I think this is outrageous and something must be done.
What can I do?
I don't pay for the New York Times or their online access. The only benefit I give the Times are my readers, and it is only around 1,000 page views a week. I give them links to the significant New York Times stories of the day. (They are the RSS permanent links which is an advantage compared to many sources.)
I can stop linking to this paper which doesn't recognize a constitutional crisis when it bites them in the ass and seems determined to support this regime no matter what.
My limited action - a boycott.
There will be no links from me to the New York Times. If it is an important story I will link to someone else's discussion of the story or someone's re-posting. I will not go to the New York Times pages and will discourage others from doing so.
I will start my boycott immediately and on New Year's Day will decide if and when the New York Times will get more traffic from me.
Please consider, take the poll, recommend, and spread the word.
Comments are closed on this story.