This may be the final straw, folks!
I think I have about had it with their arrogance, and their pro-Zionist bias and lies!
First, they end this Editorial: Selling America with the statement:
"The best hope of defusing anti-Americanism and restoring our country’s international standing lies in a renewed commitment to the values that make it great, including respect for civil liberties and international law. That will require a change of attitude"
Yeah, and a cutting off of aid to Israel!
Pfffffffttttttt!!!
I'm sick of these stink liars!
But what really got me worked up was this piece of shit by the Public Editor:
THE PUBLIC EDITOR: Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet by CLARK HOYT
WARNING: This column contains rude and objectionable language not normally found in the pages of this newspaper but seen surprisingly often on its Web site.
As The New York Times transforms itself into a multimedia news and information platform — the printed newspaper plus a robust nytimes.com offering breaking news, blogs, interactive graphics, video and more — it is struggling with a vexing problem. How does the august Times, which has long stood for dignified authority, come to terms with the fractious, democratic culture of the Internet, where readers expect to participate but sometimes do so in coarse, bullying and misinformed ways?
WHO PRINTED LIES on their FRONT PAGES to get us into the WAR, asshole!!!!
Sorry about the WELL-DESERVED language directed at you and your arrogance, Times!
Can't you just smell the stinking elitism just reading this?
And why you LOSING MARKET SHARE to the BLOGS, shitter, if you guys are SO GREAT?!?
The fact is, the public -- and me -- are sick of the Times' shit lies!!!!!!!!!!!
The answer so far is cautiously, carefully and with uneven success.
The issue is timely because last week, with very little notice, The Times took baby steps toward letting readers comment on its Web site about news articles and editorials, something scores of other newspapers have long permitted. On Tuesday, readers were invited to comment on a single article in Science Times and on the paper’s top editorial, using a link that accompanied each. Few did because there was no promotion of the change, but as the week went on and more articles were opened to comment, participation picked up.
Pffffftttttt!!!
I wouldn't waste the time commenting on their web sites about their shit stories when I can EXPOSE THEM MYSELF on MY BLOG!??
The paper is creating a comment desk, starting with the hiring of four part-time staffers, to screen all reader submissions before posting them, an investment unheard of in today’s depressed newspaper business environment. The Times has always allowed reader comments on the many blogs it publishes, with those responses screened by the newsroom staff. That experience suggests what the paper is letting itself in for.
Just like they screen and filter "all the shit that's fit to spew!"
“I didn’t know how big it would become, and I didn’t know how tough it would be to manage,” said Jim Roberts, editor of the Web site. A particularly hot topic on a blog can generate more than 500 comments — 500, that is, that meet guidelines requiring that a comment be coherent, on point, not obscene or abusive, and not a personal attack. Though editors have mixed feelings about it, The Times has so far bowed to Web custom by allowing readers to use screen names, as long as they don’t claim to be Thomas Paine, Condi Rice or a famous porn star.
I don't think you will be getting that many comments, Times.
I don't think you are getting that many visitors.
Why go there when there is sooo much more on the web?!
Besides, you tell us go to the web, but when we get here, you tell us we are all crazy!
Two cases in point: 9/11 Truth and the Ron Paul phenomena!
So FUCK YOU, you lying stinkshits!!!!!!!!!!
From Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, on down, executives and editors of The Times use similar language to describe their goal: they want the newspaper’s Web site to nurture a healthy, “civil discourse” on the topics of the day.
"Civil Discourse," they want! Pffffffffftttt!!
After you stink fucks shit on the antiwar movement?
Civil discourse is just another way of continuing Zio-prop.
Wants a healthy debate, huh?
When this shit bag paper is the worst of the offenders?
Doesn't the arrogance of this crap paper get to you after a while, readers?
“We have two great assets,” said Jonathan Landman, the deputy managing editor who is in charge of the newsroom’s online efforts. “One is the quality of the material we produce; the other is the quality of our readers, some of the most curious, intelligent and sophisticated people on earth.”
Yeah, you and your alleged snobshit readers!
Well, I'm one, so why are you always downing folks with my political perspective, you lying shitrag?
It's no secret anymore; EVERYONE KNOWS the Times is about PUSHING an AGENDA and WORLDVIEW, not "reporting news" as they claim!
That's why circulation and readership is down!!!
And think about it.
The Times must really be LOSING, because they just ended TimesSelect -- where you had to pay for opinion columnists and archives -- and are now starting a comments service for the web readers!
These guys are GOING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!
NO ONE LIKES YOU anymore, Times, because NO ONE LIKES A LIAR!!!!!!!!!
Putting the knowledge of readers together with the journalism of The Times, he said, could result in “news and information of greater power, reach and quality than even a great newsroom can produce on its own.”
Pfffffffftttt!
I wrote them letters for years, and it was always the same disrespectful dismissals of all my hard work.
So, sit and spin, shit-spewers!
That’s the lofty goal, but the real Internet world often falls far short.
Pffffffffftttttt! Yeah, but go to our website because our readership is plunging!
What arrogant assholes!
Web ain't good enough for ya? Then stay off it!!!!
We don't need the Times shit lies stinking up the waters!!!!!!!!
Just go away, shitrag!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take, for example “Ray in Mexican Colony of LA,” who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times “have all the displaced ILLEGALS from the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Building ... and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront [sic] of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.” (After I pointed this comment out to editors, it was removed.)
After The Caucus, The Times’s politics blog, reported recently that the five organized crime families of New York had voted 3-to-2 not to put out a hit contract on Rudolph Giuliani when he was a crusading United States attorney, a reader with the screen name chopsticks posted this one-word comment: “Recount!” Another, Geoff, said: “Giuliani is just as corrupt as the MOB so who really cares. They should have gotten rid of him!”
And when City Room, the local blog, reported last Tuesday that a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney said her boss had not seen a Confederate battle flag at an exclusive upstate New York club where he went hunting, some readers responded with comments that included the word “crap,” which would almost certainly never appear in a letter to the editor in the printed newspaper.
No, but a lot of BULLSHIT certainly appears in your news pages every fucking day!
“Some things are bound to slip through,” said Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus. But she sees a bigger picture. “Reader engagement enriches our world,” she said. “I am totally enthralled, astounded by the minds of our readers.”
Yet Phillips said she struggles sometimes with the “intolerance” and “vitriol” she sees in some comments — so much so that on rare occasions “I almost wish we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.”
Oh, I'll bet you fucking do, you LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!
Because the BLOGS have exposed you for the LIARS YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And she is complaining about "intolerance" and "vitriol?"
Ever check out the anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist tone of your news pages and their repetitive Zionist lies, shitter?
The VITRIOL is WELL-DESERVED, fucksticks!!!!!!!!
Given the current political atmosphere, The Caucus is a magnet for splenetic comments, many of which don’t make it onto the Web site. A posting by a Times correspondent about Barack Obama is sure to bring out racist submissions. Mention of Mitt Romney inspires “just horrific misstatements about Mormonism and his own life,” Phillips said. Wild claims that Hillary Clinton is a murderer don’t make it either.
Given the current atmosphere? Well, WHOI is responsible for that?
YOU ARE, you trend-setter for the daily news coverage!!!!
I am so sick of these stinkshit elites down there at the Times!!
Of course, throwing out these charges discredits the exact people the Times wishes "we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.”
CUI BONO, readers? The SELF-SERVING, SHIT-BAG Times, that's who!!!!
And they are not wild claims about the Bilderberg Queen, sir!
Or have you so quickly forgotten Oklahoma City (about 16 minutes in, run time 30 mins), Waco, or the first WTC attack in 1993?
I will never forget!
Several weeks ago, Phillips intervened in a running debate among readers over news that Christian conservatives were talking about supporting a third-party candidate for president. “Please refrain from the vicious name-calling,” she wrote, “not only against one another but also against one another’s political and religious views and identities. The attacks are neither constructive nor instructive and will not be published.”
Unless they are against Arabs or Muslims!
What a bunch of elite, stinkshit assholes!!!!!!!!!
Some readers chafe under such admonitions. “You cannot censure speech, however derogatory, mean-spirited, or offending it is,” wrote one, identified as jondom, in February, after another Phillips plea to “stop the name-calling.” “We need an open dialogue in this country, now more than ever,” jondom said. Another reader, Mithras, wrote: “Mandating tepid civility in blog comments has an ideological component. ‘Politeness’ bars sharply worded disagreement by dissenters against those who claim to be authority, but doesn’t usually bar dismissive or patronizing arguments by authority against the dissenters.”
And as Hoyt's article instructs, we will discard these opinions of readers.
Look at the treatment given, putting this back in the last section of his piece.
And I TOTALLY AGREE with Mithras! That's what the Times is everyday:
"Patronizing arguments by authority against the dissenters"
Many major newspapers, like The Washington Post and USA Today, do not have an editor screen comments before posting them. Those two papers allow other readers to object to a comment as abusive, and then an editor will check it.
But Landman said The Times never considered unmoderated comments.
Martin Nisenholtz, senior vice president for digital operations of The New York Times Company, said: “A pure free-for-all doesn’t, in my opinion, equal good. It can equal bad.”
I believe that’s especially true if you’re The New York Times and you are trying to maintain a rare tradition of civility. A site with many Rays in Mexican Colony of LA might carry the name of The New York Times, but it would no longer be The New York Times."
Awwww, you guys are so much more civilized and sophisticated than the American people out here, I'll bet your shit don't stink, right?
Yeah, the New York Times is REAL CIVIL, LYING US INTO A WAR and all!!!
Yeah, that's REAL CIVIL, the result of this war the TIMES PUSHED FOR!!!!!!
Yeah, no WMDs, no terrorist ties, over 1 MILLION Iraqis dead, and the Times is civilized because it doesn't allow foul language!
Pffffffffffffttttttttttttt!!!!!!
I will never forget the disinformation and lies that came out of this shitrag.
And I will never forgive the disrespect and denigrations heaped upon those like me.
NEVER!
For another shitstinkingly arrogant piece by Hoyt, see here:
Pre-Emptive Apology
