New York Times pot, meet the NeoCon kettle. I call you out, AGAIN

[EFerrari]

Today's NYTs editorial took Dick Cheney to task for using inside knowledge of a terrorist plot for political gain.

Here is the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1883389

And, I'm sure that most will agree, what Cheney did was unethical, even repugnant.

But, I have to call you out again, New York Times. Because Mr. Cheney only sat on this story for a few days. You sat on the NSA Wiretapping story for a YEAR -- that is, you sat on it until after the 2004 Federal election. Apparently you have a greater tolerance for exploiting the American people than Dick Cheney does. That's remarkable, to say the least.

Let's review: Not only did the New York Times not report the massive voter suppression and disenfranchisement that was obvious in Ohio on election night, it also didn't report the riots that broke out when voters began objecting physically to being separated from their ballot.

The New York Times also promised to report Ohio -- should its two ace reporters, Burke and Purdy, find a story there. I have that on the best authority, the promise of the then Public Editor Okrent. Mr. Okrent, who found it necessary to mass mail the hundreds -- thousands? -- of subscribers who were demanding coverage of the theft of their election in Ohio.

We are still waiting. Nearly two years and a pile of literature later, we are still waiting.

As we approach the 2006 midterm elections, it may be that readers, or, voters will not turn to the New York Times for their news. Because the New York Times has also failed to report the repressive consequences of HAVA which imposes insecure voter registration databases and electronic voting on most of the electorate. So, it looks like, right off the bat, the NYTs isn't the "go to" place to understand what is happening to our vote, to our franchise. And as election fraud has always been mainly a race crime, there will be a colorful segment of the American public not reading in droves.

That Mr. Cheney pursues a suicidal self serving course of action is somewhat understandable. He is in his later years and he may yet find a way to take it with him. That the New York Times pursues a suicidal editorial policy is less comprehensible. And were it not such an utter betrayal of its readers' trust, it would be almost saddening.

Elizabeth Ferrari
San Francisco

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. Excellent point. Thanks for the bitter reminder. ....n/t

[EFerrari]

4. Feet to the fire, Sara. I know what happened in Ohio.

[fooj]

6. The entire country knows what happened in Ohio.

This isn't about Ohio.

Focus your energies. We need all the strength we can muster.

[EFerrari]

13. This is all about Ohio. Check it out: they are pretending

to slap Cheney. And he will pretend to take umbrage. And, the cycle keeps going.

I say, remind them that, while they make a good point, they are still on notice: we won't settle for faux news or staged elections.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. What happened in Ohio was CRIMINAL. Covering it up was also

CRIMINAL. Hopefully, it will be historical 'fact' some day.

[EFerrari]

12. It only will be if we don't let it go down the memory hole. n/t

[fooj]

19. You get no argument from me. No Faux news allowed!

[EFerrari]

20. fooj, have you seen "Got Democracy" -- it's been playing on

LINK.

[fooj]

2. Beth...

IMO, Cheney IS the reason they sat on that story. No excuses for the NYT...just the way I see it. NOBODY exploits the American people like Cheney does. Not even the NYT.

[EFerrari]

3. I think we need to spread the credit and the responsibility.

:nuke:

[fooj]

5. There are MANY who need to be held accountable.

I'm all for that.

The one thing that I AM sure of is that the editorial is good for Lamont. Keep your eye on the prize. The treasonous rat bastards in this country WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE when we achieve our goals.

[EFerrari]

7. We can multitask. Remember, teach, people tend to learn serially.

lol

I have to get some sleep. :hug:

[Justice Is Comin]

8. Yeah. You and Cheney.

[EFerrari]

10. The salient difference being they pretend to slap his wrist

and he'll pretend to swat them.

I'm not pretending. :hi:

[Oversea Visitor]

9. Damn they being behaving like a real paper

Who bought over them :rofl:

[Hissyspit]

14. Didn't they kill the "Bush wearing a wire during the debates" story...

too, Beth?

Well-written letter, by the way.

[EFerrari]

15. Sure they did. And that's what they do, kill news.

Remember that thread that talked about how the control of the voter reg database in TN was taken from the Sec of State (D) and handed to the Governor (R)?

But, they never interrogated the fact of a voter registration database. They never bothered to say, this means you can't vote if you aren't in the database whether you are eligible to vote or not!

And these databases are mandatory under the Hinder American Voters Act.

They dance around the real issue. And while we're looking up their skirt, there goes our franchise.

[Wetzelbill]

16. oh yeah K & R!

:)

[DemReadingDU]

17. Excellent Letter! K&R

I'm in Ohio, and I'm still bitter and resentful. Perhaps I will be less cynical after the election in November.

[Kurovski]

18. K&R.

:kick:

[bleever]

21. The New York Times will only really

complete their journey back to sanity if they confront the realities of what they themselves have done.

Lately they have shown instances of independent stands worthy of the Fourth Estate in full force, and I give them credit.

Your letter, if heeded, will help them on their journey. They've done so much to enable this mess, they better wake up to the election scam pretty fast. Otherwise, karmically, they might as well just bend over and squeal like a pig.

[EFerrari]

22. They specialize in having it both ways. My paper tries

to do the same thing. They try to position themselves as in favor of election reform but refuse, REFUSE to report that Diebold has been recertified in our state.

Worse, I think, than having a paper that is outright propagandistic, is to have one that every now and then appears to hold the government responsible for its abuses of power. Because, we'd want to trust the latter. Wouldn't we?

[bleever]

23. I read it on DU, I think,

the Goebbels quote saying that the easiest lie to sell is the one people want to believe.

Is the NYT working its way back to the Good Side, or are they (consciously or otherwise) being made (again) an agent of the great Muddling of good and evil that supports the triumph of evil?

Good question. Really good.

:hi: