NY TIMES eating large quantities of crap – 16% drop in ad revenue

The company, which reported a 16 percent drop in advertising revenue at its news media group, also said it might write down as much as $150 million at its New England operations, underscoring the dismal state of newspaper advertising.

story

A 16% loss…? Why in the world could that be?

U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency

The headline from the NYT the other day. Great news, and more evidence of how important the surge has been. It seems like an appropriate time to reflect back at their overwhelming support for victory in Iraq…

The only real question about the planned “surge” in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07 

There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. — NYT Editorial, 1/11/07

What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. — Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07

Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. — Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07

W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07

The senator supported a war that didn’t need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won’t work. — Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07

Now the ”surge” that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr’s militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq’s army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. — Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07

Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. — NYT Editorial, 3/29/07

There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. — NYT Editorial, 4/12/07

… the empty hope of the “surge” … — Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07

Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. — NYT Editorial, 5/11/07

Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. — Maureen Down, NYT, 5/27/07

Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. — NYT Editorial, 7/25/07

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. — Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07

The Times regrets the error(s).

ht: Jawa, Volokh

All That’s Fit To Be Shoveled Down Your Throat

The New York Slimes Times – aka. the ivory pinnacle of journalistic integrity, objectivity, and self proclaimed ‘All that’s fit to print’ – is running three front page stories today on Palin’s teen daughter’s pregnancy. Be sure to note how totally negative balanced each headline and lead is: 

  1. In Political Realm, ‘Family Problem’ Emerges as Test
    Republicans rallied around Gov. Sarah Palin, but the disclosure of her teenage daughter’s pregnancy brought uncertainty. 
  2. A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers
    Gov. Sarah Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether she has the time to take on the vice presidency. 
  3. Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting Process
    “The disclosure that Gov. Sarah Palin’s daughter was pregnant was one of several revelations that called into question how well John McCain had screened her.” 

Since there is such a short amount of time before the formal debates start – it’s important to fire-hose Palin with fecal matter as widely and rapidly as possible – especially with nearly every local paper picking up NYT stories.

By the way NYT – how are things going in Iraq? What? – Anbar province has been handed over to the Iraqis!? Is a major step towards successfully ending a war worthy of 3 front page stories? Oh – I guess this story on a dispute over how many civilians may have been accidentally killed in a U.S. air raid was more noteworthy…

I’ll quote an earlier post:

Of course, if you don’t know – it’s probably because the NYT has refused to print positive stories about Iraq, or anything that might actually show that we are making progress there – instead favoring 32 days straight of front page articles to cover what a few jackasses did in Abu Ghraib.

ht: Drudge

NYTimes Rejects McCain’s Response to Obama’s NYTimes Op-ed

Here’s the NYSlimes reasoning:

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.

Did Obama’s Op-ed from last week titled, My Plan for Iraq,  “define victory in Iraq?” No. But that’s because Obama does not believe any sort of victory in Iraq is ever possible and the New York Time knows it, and assumes that you know it. I guess, however, that the NYT thinks you aren’t smart enough to be able to figure out what John McCain’s plan is, or what victory in Iraq might be.

Of course, if you don’t know – it’s probably because the NYT has refused to print positive stories about Iraq, or anything that might actually show that we are making progress there – instead favoring 32 days straight of front page articles to cover what a few jackasses did in Abu Ghraib.

Here’s John McCain’s rejected NYT piece in it’s entirety:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

So since the NYT wants McCain to clearly explain what ‘victory in Iraq’ means before they’ll publish his piece –  Why didn’t the New York Times reject Obama’s letter, since Obama clearly didn’t explain why victory in Iraq was impossible?

Perhaps it’s because the NYT figures everyone agrees with Obama, and thus no explanation was necessary…

Here’s a little reminder of the NYT past high standards for op-eds: All the Astrology that’s Fit to Print

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.