Why I Don't Buy The NYT

I still talk to people who read the New York Times. They seem confused by my refusal to buy it, my point being I should not feed the enemy. They seem unaware of the culture war going on.

This morning I went online to the paper's web site, being too lazy to work. It took less than two minutes to become distressed. So, rather than dismiss the rag in darkness, I decided share a few thoughts so that others may understand my mental state:

PM Gordon Brown said the other day that Britain would be scheduling to remove troops from their mission in southern Iraq. He said that since his campaign for PM.

The British had a slightly safer place to pacify and are, in some ways, better at the diplomatic side, though the U.S. is learning. Brown said it was time, basically, as the need was less, even mentioning since the surge had reduced violence. Of course, we would like to see them stay.

The NYT reports on this story below. Deep into the article was good stuff, but look how it starts:

Britain to Halve Its Force in Iraq

By JANE PERLEZ

Published: October 9, 2007

LONDON, Oct. 8 — Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the House of Commons on Monday that he would remove half of the 5,000 British troops in Iraq by next spring, and left open the strong possibility that all British soldiers would leave Iraq by the end of 2008.

“The Iraqis are now able to take responsibility for the security themselves,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown told parliament

Mr. Brown said the cuts were possible because of what he described as the progress made in training Iraqi security forces. He described the situation in Basra in southern Iraq, where the British troops are based, as “calmer.”

Since President Bush has made clear that American troops will remain heavily committed in Iraq at least through his administration’s end in January 2009, it appears that the tight alliance on Iraq forged between Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, and Washington is fraying. Indeed, a hallmark of Mr. Brown’s three months as prime minister has been the relative distance he has established with the American president.

Huh? There is nothing in the story about anything fraying or distancing. There is nothing in what Brown said or says, either, about that. This is Jane's reactive knock Bush/US ASAP. Her spin on how England is running away from evil America after it finally rid itself of the Bush puppet Blair.

In the old days, reporters reported, now we have Columbia "journalists" telling us what they know to be true since Nancy Peolosi said so. [Gee, the NYT missed the story yesterday of how Nancy "prays" every day for George Bush. You see, they know she is full of refuse and is only issuing propaganda - a good thing to the NYT]

The important thing to note is virtually no one actually reads any paper. Most people, and they have statistics on this, read the headline. Some read the first few paragraphs - that's it. Hence, the traditional story format of jamming the who, what, etc into the first two paragraphs.

The whole story re PM Brown is not on page 1 of the web site, of course, so how did I get to it? From this link on the main page:

Britain to Halve Its Force in Iraq

By JANE PERLEZ

The move suggests that the alliance on Iraq forged between former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Washington is unraveling.

Double Huh?

The only suggestions as to any unraveling is from Jane, not from anyone in the article. Indeed, one pundit was quoted as saying the British were being forced out by RPGs. How come Jane did not say: "The move suggests the British don't like being killed." At least there would be some support in the article for the headline. The headline is the lynch pin of propaganda.

The story then opines that Brown made this announcement in a political move regarding future elections, to look good for the voters. NYT's writers seem to think all politicians are Clintonian 24/7- able to make major decisions of life, death, and security based upon winning the next election. Projection is an interesting tool to learn about those who give their opinions.

On p. 1 of the web, there is a smaller headline with no lead paragraph: Russia on Its Mind, Georgia Flexes Its Muscle in Iraq.

What is this all about? Lest you don't click through, let me rewrite the propoganda headline:

In an Act of Solidarity with America
Georgia Sending More Troops to Iraq

How odd. A lie headline about the British winding down in Iraq NEXT YEAR because of an "unraveling" gets all the play while the geopolitically strong story is buried in a vague headline. Click to the story and you see the spectacular picture above.

Confused, the Times finds their anti-Bush link - Georgia is only going to Iraq, as other nations pull out (I guess that means England in six months), because it is sucking up the U.S. for support in its bid to join NATO. Having created that postulate from thin air, the writer adds, being a subtle intellectual: "but neither nation has formally linked the deployment in Iraq with that." See, we NYT reporters knows the inside game and will tell you when to ingore the facts.

I find it amazing that the NYT cannot just quote participants, like Xinhua, the Chicom news agency which is vastly superior. If you want to read a good report of the Brown comments go to Xinhua HERE. That report will give you facts!

How is it the Chinese communists understand the difference between reporting and editorializing and the NYT does not? More from Jane:

Georgian officials play down the idea of even an informal quid pro quo. They say that after their initial decision to send troops in 2003, the current contingent reflects a commitment to maintaining security.

“We should show everyone that we are not stepping back and running away from a difficult situation,” Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said March 9 when he announced the troop buildup....

But it is hardly fear of Iran that impels the Georgians to contribute so significantly to the war. As the United States is searching for allies, so is Georgia, which aspires to NATO membership as a security guarantee against Russia.

“As soldiers here, we help the American soldiers,” Cpl. Georgi N. Zedguidze explained, peering past the sun-scorched checkpoint where he was guarding a bridge over the Tigris River. “Then America as a country will help our country.”

You see, the officials "play down" what the NYT knows to be true and is informing its trusting readers. They portray Georgia is a petty political hack like NYT's writers; they understand lying and posturing, so they think they see it everywhere. What Goergia says is "hardly" the truth.

The story later recounts interviews with soldiers who understand that the armed and dangerous Shiite nut jobs will become a problem for their own country. As usual, the Times story contradicts its own spin.

Here is a part that must really piss off the Times:

At a ceremony marking the formal start of their mission on Monday, soldiers knelt and were sprinkled with holy water by their Eastern Orthodox priest.

A great quote:

Sgt. Koba Oshkhereli, looking out of the dusty gate of Forward Operating Base Delta at the trash-strewn streets of Kut and all the danger it holds, put it this way: “The bear was sleeping. Now the bear is awake and stomping his feet.”

Here is a feature story that got good space on the main page:

Aging and Gay, and Facing Prejudice in Twilight

By JANE GROSS

Elderly gay people in assisted-living centers and nursing homes increasingly report being mistreated.

This is front page news for the NYT! Aging gay discrimination. Both gay and old - a double discrimination worthy of being a litmus test for judges. I wonder if the Times does stories on how ALL AGING people in homes are treated like crap.

Down in the "World" links, there was a link to the most important story in the world - about students in Iran protesting the man who is about to bring war to the nation.

Gee, Bush may be right. Can't lead with that.