Which side is the NYT on?

posted at 8:59 am on July 17, 2006 by Bryan

LGF: The Media Are Our Enemy
Joao Silva * Michele McNally
NYTimes photo album
“In the Company of God”
Goldstein * Power Line
Patterico * Moran * Anchoress

Download Vent for your iPod
Watch Vent on YouTube

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just exactly when do the words of our laws involving sedition reach a point where they have meaning?

I’m sick of this crap. It’s time to shut down the propaganda wing of our enemies that’s operating openly right here in the U.S.

This isn’t freedom of speech anymore. This is getting our troops killed and encouraging an enemy that wants us all dead, or enslaved for extortion.

techno_barbarian on July 17, 2006 at 9:14 AM

I might have to excuse myself to go vomit.

This is sickening. When can someone get keller on tape defending this?

Richsamg on July 17, 2006 at 9:25 AM

How can anybody justify as “photojournalism” standing idly by while a terrorist fires on our troops? For the life of me, I can’t understand how anybody can justify an action like this.

dalewalt on July 17, 2006 at 9:40 AM

You have got to be shitting me.

Professor Blather on July 17, 2006 at 9:41 AM

Cowards. Plain and simple. Keller should br tried for treason.

Max1959 on July 17, 2006 at 9:42 AM

Infuriating. Simply infuriating. As a photographer I know what a rough world it can be to get your stuff seen. It is a judgement call. Do you sell your soul for exposure and a name or is it better to sleep at night knowing you did NOT endanger the very people who bought your freedom with their BLOOD??!! To me the answer is simple..quite obviously to others it is not.

labwrs on July 17, 2006 at 9:42 AM

One thousand NYT’s are not worth one boot from an American Soldier.

EricPWJohnson on July 17, 2006 at 9:48 AM

And you know who that silly sh*t photographer would be calling if he little terrorist butt buddies turned on him, wouldn’t you? Remember how Eason Jordan kept a CNN bureau in Iraq under Hussein? He fudged his stories…same thing this a$$clown photog is doing. Take a picture of Abdul pointing his gun out the window…I am starting to wonder though…why are we getting mad at the Times? They’re doing it because they can get with it…what really makes me angry is why they haven’t been slapped with sedition charges…..another good vent…

austinnelly on July 17, 2006 at 9:52 AM

The enemy, among us.

NRA4Freedom on July 17, 2006 at 9:59 AM

If you look at the photos and read the McNally’s commentary, I’m sure you’ll find this equally telling of the NYSlimes views …

While Marines continued to push deep into a southern part of Falluja where the last elements of Mujahadeen fighters are holed up, four men surrendered saying they were students trying to escape the fight.

Michele McNally: “This picture is symbolic, iconic and grudgingly aesthetic.”

“Symbolic” of WHAT Michele????

BrunoMitchell on July 17, 2006 at 10:02 AM

I’ve been calling them the Enemy Press for about a year now. About time others are too.

Just exactly when do the words of our laws involving sedition reach a point where they have meaning?

They no longer have meaning, the war’s over. We surrendered when we gave “rights” to those who don’t deserve it. Our only hope is that open war begins, then people will understand what’s really going on. Too bad people will have to die first.

ScottG on July 17, 2006 at 10:06 AM

Chris Matthews yesterday could not stop complaining about the US not being an impartial “honest broker” in the “conflict between Hizzbolla and Israel”.

Chris hais and makeup looked perfect, but he has lost touch with reality.

Reality Check on July 17, 2006 at 10:13 AM

Revolting. This sniper–or one just like him–may have been the reason one of my former students, a 20-year old serviceman, was brought home in a casket. His death came from sniper fire. Too bad Silva’s camera didn’t have the ability to “shoot” in a more dramatic mode. A picture of the sniper dead in the corner would have been infinitely more satisfying.

Maybe I can send Silva a picture of the memorial stone and the tree we planted in the kid’s honor outside our school.

pubscout on July 17, 2006 at 10:23 AM

Great article on http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Arabs Fear Iran More Than They Hate The Jews
The New York Times provides an interesting analysis regarding the surprising criticism coming from Arab capitals towards Hezbollah. Yesterday, its chief complained that the Arabs had not rallied around his organization while it fights the hated “Zionists”. However, the Arabs understand that Hezbollah represents a non-Arab threat that presents a much bigger problem than Israel: READ IT ALL

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 17, 2006 at 10:25 AM

How about using the laws regarding being a terrorist support organization against the Times?

KCSteve on July 17, 2006 at 10:29 AM

The Times still thinks the War on Terror is a parlor game.

The Times thinks that they are playing a part.

They are.

History will judge.

Wander on July 17, 2006 at 10:32 AM

Amazing how the media can find these scumbags…maybe our troops need to pretend to be sympathetic, than finish them off. That the american media has sunk to defending our enemies. I say again, Lincoln shut down traitor newspapers, maybe GWB needs to give it a try.

jcon96 on July 17, 2006 at 10:41 AM

Had we pitched an HE round into that room to neutralize the sniper, Keller would be the first to be screaming about the death of his brave employee, and demanding that the US stop targeting journalists.

Bad news, Bill. It’s OK to kill the enemy.

Pablo on July 17, 2006 at 10:42 AM

Key here is that the photog appears to be Portugese living in South Africa… while working for the Times…

Can’t fault him for shooting the Pics…

I can Fault the NYT for the editorial comments below them… those comments ARE treason. They ARE giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Romeo13 on July 17, 2006 at 10:55 AM

As someone commented (I think on LGF):

What would the ‘journalist’ have done of the alledged sniper had asked him: “Would you like to take a shot?”.

My guess is he would have gladly done so and wouild have taken a shot at one of our soldiers.

Isn’t that what the Slimes has been doing? Taking shots at our soldiers (and civilians) with their treason.

CrazyFool on July 17, 2006 at 10:59 AM

Damn just damn. I know too many good soldiers who have suffered at the hands of this enemy. Sorry words won’t come right now. Damn.

LakeRuins on July 17, 2006 at 11:15 AM

Hey Michelle, luv ya (mean it) but just between us, the word “cache” is pronounced like the English word “cash.”

If the NYT wants pics of America’s enemies they could just take pictures of people there in their own offices. They could take action shots of somebody at a computer simulating writing a treasonous article.

Mojave Mark on July 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM

The New York Times is beyond shame. And the thing is if these IslamoFascists were shooting up New York they’d be targeting–and taking out–these Liberal Metrosexuals one after the other.

ZULU on July 17, 2006 at 11:18 AM

Romeo13, I can fault the photographer; I don’t care that he’s Portugese, or where he’s living. Apart from being a terrorist, this guy is committing a crime (attempted murder); instead of doing something about it, the photog takes a flippin’ picture??? So if I see somebody snatch a purse, I should whip out my cell phone to get his pic?

dalewalt on July 17, 2006 at 11:26 AM

Unbelievable. The guy just stood there while this COWARD sniper took shots at our guys. Makes me sick to my stomach.

StephC on July 17, 2006 at 11:43 AM

dalewalt… I agree the shooter should be brought up on charges, by the IRAQI government, and this picture can be used as evidence..

Or he could be charged with War Crimes…

But that is NOT something we can do here in America… now the Times and their pandering to the enemy… the way the Editor gives aid and support to our enemies??? That is somthing we can, and should, do somthing about.

Romeo13 on July 17, 2006 at 11:51 AM

I Say TREASON is what every last one of them, that put our troops in harms way..(NYT,Keller the photographer and Sheehan)
There is no talking to them anymore.
I’m fed up with them leftist nutjobs!
PRISON TIME!!!! PRISON TIME!!!

alyce on July 17, 2006 at 11:55 AM

Disgraceful to the canon of ethics of journalism
Every single journalist and journalism student needs to really be reeducated

Defector01 on July 17, 2006 at 12:01 PM

Disgraceful, cowardly, sickening.

High Desert Wanderer on July 17, 2006 at 12:37 PM

If that sniper actually shot and killed one of our soldiers while the reporter snapped pictures, isn’t that considered aiding and abetting a crime?

pullingmyhairout on July 17, 2006 at 12:42 PM

Would this same ‘photojournalist’ follow gangs involved in the world sex trade industry as they brutalize young girls and children? Would he sit in the room listening to their cries and screams while he hides behind his camera? Of course, he would have to blur the faces to protect the ‘innocent’ perpetrators. These perps are forced to do this to make a living because BUSH has so ruined the world’s economy. Today’s media/press is morally bankrupt.

captried on July 17, 2006 at 12:52 PM

It’s politics. And that’s sad. The Democrats who are lynching Lieberman for being pro-war look to the NYTimes for leadership. And the NYTimes is using their position of authority to drag the entire Democratic Party farther to the Left, by praising the enemy and cursing our efforts to fight terrorism.
This picture speaks as much to the ideology of the Times as it does that of the sniper killing American soldiers.
Despicable.

Doug on July 17, 2006 at 12:58 PM

The photo was staged. Notice the windows are all blown out but there’s no broken glass on the floor. It’s been cleaned up. The photographer would not have been in that room if there was a chance of drawing return fire, which means the awkward looking left-handed “sniper” had not fired his weapon, nor was he about to. There is no assurance the psuedo sniper is a member of Mucki Sadr’s militia even. I regret that I had but one NYT subscription to cancel.

Crude One on July 17, 2006 at 1:00 PM

Out-freakin’-standing!!

I said a couple of weeks ago that Bill Keller’s statement regarding the NYTimes neutrality (more precisely, the stated lack thereof) should be repeated again and again and again to remind everybody who’s side they are on. It’s clearly not America’s side, as can be seen in both NYTimes actions and words.

Thanks again, HotAir team for keeping Keller’s clip of admitted treason handy and using it multiple instances in this Vent. Hopefully we will see more of it in future editions of Vent that deal with our terrorist-supporting media.

And on a relatad side note … can anyone tell me why al-Sadr is still alive? It’s long past time to give him the Zarqawi 500 lb. special.

thirteen28 on July 17, 2006 at 1:35 PM

If the photo is “real” (in that the sniper is actually shooting at somebody), the Times’ employee is an accessory to a war crime. The Geneva Convention requires that combatants be in uniform, correct? So unless this photo is published as part of an “expose of evil”, or a documentary of war crimes, I think some guilt extends beyond the photographer and goes to the Times itself.

If the photo is staged, the Times itself is guilty of spreading enemy propaganda. The only thing missing from this picture would be Peter Arnett holding a microphone….

In either case, the Times is beneath contempt. Why they still believe they’re “the paper of record” and still relevant is beyond me. Probably because the rest of the MSM still kisses Keller’s ring every day?

Dave Shay on July 17, 2006 at 1:53 PM

Staged or not, as my Cuban mom says esto le pone la tapa al pomo; meaning something like icing on the cake but in a negative sense.

If it was staged shame on them, if it was real I’d take this guy to court under aiding and abetting and conspiracy charges.

LaVentanita on July 17, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Would this same ‘photojournalist’ follow gangs involved in the world sex trade industry as they brutalize young girls and children?

Sure, and just to make sure he got the whole story, he’d come back later to get more “in depth” information….

If the photo is “real”… the Times’ employee is an accessory to a war crime.

I’m sure this foe-tographer is very careful to stay out of our jurisdiction.

ScottG on July 17, 2006 at 2:35 PM

Why aren’t Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr and the “terrorist imbedded” photographers/reporters responsible for those photos sitting on death row awaiting the hangman for committing overt acts of treason?

georgej on July 17, 2006 at 2:49 PM

So what do we do about this treason folks? I think that canceling subscriptions are in order but we need to do more. Writing letters to the advertisers in the NYT telling them that we are not purchasing their products as long as they advertise in the NYT is a step. However, we need to hurt this organization where it matters most. In their revenue sources anyway we can! It seems that the Justice Department has no stomach for trying these pieces of s..t so we must do what we can to force them to close and/or change management.

JonR on July 17, 2006 at 3:05 PM

OK so everybody is on the same page…it all stinks and the NYT is really Pravda in drag. So what to do about it. How about hitting the NYT in the pocket? One of the web savvy out there start a site that lists the NYT top ten advertisers and urges all like minded AMERICANS to boycott them. Make sure that the companies responsible for NYT ad revenue get a premier preview of the site. Boycotting circualtion isn’t going to help…anybody with 10% of their faculties still intact won’t buy the paper, even for the new puppy.

sickofexcuses on July 17, 2006 at 3:13 PM

Excellent vent! Keller should be tried for treason.

modifiedcontent on July 17, 2006 at 3:42 PM

Thirteen28…. sorry, but Bill Keller’s statement was taken out of context.

I’m not a fan of his or the NYT, but he admitted nothing. The second part of the quote was about Embedded media, trying to spin it as the Press is PRO West in the WOT.

Please, don’t stoop to misquoting, like the NYT’s does so often.

Romeo13 on July 17, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Excellent Rant, Micheele!

The photo in question reminds me very much of a B&W photo taken decades ago by a Times photographer during the siege of Hue City and the Tet Offensive.

The photo featured a scruffy, helmeted Marine leaning back in a kitchen chair, with his feet up on a table. Casually shooting through a ground-level, shelled out window at NVA troops across the street with his M-16.

The ignorant photographer used the word “Sniper” in the photo’s caption, too. What a Maroon!

Jack.

Jack Deth on July 17, 2006 at 4:35 PM

The most telling part of this story and how rotten to the core the NYT is, are the comments by whack job Michele McNally. It’s one thing to snap these pictures of people trying to kill Americans and doing nothing while you watch, it’s another to think that we need a running commentary by McNally while she holds a photo in one hand and a vibrator with the other.

Hening on July 17, 2006 at 4:36 PM

And next week they’ll have an article complaining about how the American troops are targeting journalists.

Well, gee. Maybe if they didn’t sleep with the enemy…

mustangmike on July 17, 2006 at 5:37 PM

I’ve tried to get more on the Keller interview. On one hand, my desire for information isn’t fully satisfied by a soundbite that’s tightly edited at the beginning, middle, and end. On the other hand, I don’t want to have to listen to the entire Windows Media file of the interview, deprived of the use of the fast-forward and rewind buttons.

I’d like to see a two- to five-minute segment of the interview to get the context of Keller’s remark, or the full interview, with the FF and RW buttons enabled. If someone knows where either has been posted, I’d appreciate your posting the URL here. Thanks.

Kralizec on July 17, 2006 at 6:54 PM

Thirteen28…. sorry, but Bill Keller’s statement was taken out of context.

I’m not a fan of his or the NYT, but he admitted nothing. The second part of the quote was about Embedded media, trying to spin it as the Press is PRO West in the WOT.

Please, don’t stoop to misquoting, like the NYT’s does so often.

I suppose you can make that argument if you restrict the context only to the forum in which Keller was speaking when he uttered those words. However, when you put it in context with the actions of the NYTimes – revealing the NSA wiretaps and revealing the finance tracking program just to name two incidents - then it doesn’t look like a misquote at all.

Actions always speak louder than words, no matter what context the words were spoken in or how they were quoted. The actions of the NYTimes under Bill Keller’s direction clearly shows where their loyalties lie. So, if you’ll pardon me for “misquoting” again (or at least mis-paraphrasing), if you are under the impression that the NYTimes is neutral in this war on terror, you couldn’t be more wrong.

thirteen28 on July 17, 2006 at 7:05 PM

Why is it that Keller’s clip appears to have been edited? Are we watching something taken out of context as Romeo13 suggested? Keller’s a pig and his paper acts in a traitorous manner, but to be fair, is that EXACTLY what he said?? Come on Michelle and Jesse, surely you’ve got the bandwidth and balls to post the whole statement in context.

kmackie6612 on July 17, 2006 at 7:21 PM

Here’s a link to the transcript. Keller’s statement appears beginning at the bottom of page 4 and continuing on page 5.

Yes, the statement in today’s Vent does have some context removed and thus can be misleading.

Nevertheless, I’ll still contend that, in the context of the actions of the NYTimes under Keller’s direction, they are most definitely not neutral in the war on terror, and it’s not a big leap to figure out whose side I believe they are on. Keller is merely talking out of both sides of his mouth in a statement that can roughly be translated as “who are you going to believe – me or your lying eyes?”

thirteen28 on July 17, 2006 at 7:35 PM

If the photo is “real” (in that the sniper is actually shooting at somebody), the Times’ employee is an accessory to a war crime. The Geneva Convention requires that combatants be in uniform, correct? So unless this photo is published as part of an “expose of evil”, or a documentary of war crimes, I think some guilt extends beyond the photographer and goes to the Times itself.

If the photo is staged, the Times itself is guilty of spreading enemy propaganda. The only thing missing from this picture would be Peter Arnett holding a microphone….

Dave Shay on July 17, 2006 at 1:53 PM

I couldn’t add anything more to this if I tried, so I’ll just leave those words again.

Thanks Dave Shay

rahjr2k on July 17, 2006 at 8:02 PM

I edited Keller’s quote, snipping out a few words that made it longer than I wanted it to be but without changing the meaning of what he said. In context, Keller says what he says in Vent, but doesn’t say which side the press is on or which side it wants to win the war. He just says that it’s not neutral. Given that he doesn’t say which side the press is on, it’s up to us to figure it out, and the best way to do that is to examine the actions the press has taken since the war began.

Remember the “brutal Afghan winter?” Remember talk of a quagmire just a week into the Afghan campaign? Remember Eason Jordan admitting that CNN covered up for Saddam? And remember that same Eason Jordan accusing US troops of targeting journalists for murder? The press started out bad and has only gotten worse, to the point that the NYT publishes wartime secrets and its reporters tip off terrorists and its photographers shoot the war from the terrorists’ point of view.

Making it clear, to me anyway, which side the non-neutral press is on.

Bryan on July 17, 2006 at 8:14 PM

My last name is Silva. For the most part, I never see the name Silva anyway. Now it’s this jerk, ruining my fine Portuguese name. To make matters worse, we’re both J Silvas. No good, no good.

JamesVersusEveryone on July 17, 2006 at 8:24 PM

The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3:

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

The New York Times exposes a communications monitoring program that tracks terrorists.

in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

The New York Times exposes a financial tracking network which has aided in capturing terrorists.

in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

The New York Times publishes photographs, by one of it’s employees, showing terrorists shooting at American soldiers.

in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

When are those lickspittle, useless politicians in Washington going to get off the stick and charge the New York Times with treason????

Rusty Bill on July 17, 2006 at 9:38 PM

I think this demonstrates two important points.

* The jihadist/terrorists are becoming more sophisitcated readers of News media. Remember what happened to Danny Pearl in Afganistan? The backlash was very bad for their cause in the West. Since then journalists are pretty much hands off. The only one seriously in danger since then was Jill Carroll with the Christian science monitor, and ultimately she was released. I suspect she was more in danger because of the name of her organization than the fact that she was a journalist. They’re learning… be very nice, polite, and helpful to western journalists and you’ll help the cause.

Which brings me to my second point…

* They (jihadist/terrorists) are making the same mistake the Dem’s made during the 2004 Presidental election. Remember when the MSM weeks before the election kept giving Kerry a pass on the swift boat issue? When Brokaw brought it up, Kerry even muttered ” who’s side are you on?” The MSM kept saying Kerry by a land slide. The MSM even kept hawking the exit polls as Kerry being the winner until the real nunbers came in….AND THEY WERE COMPLETLEY WRONG James Taranto made the same point, sorry I can’t find it right now so I’m going to paraphrase, “had the mainstream media actually done it’s job and seriously questioned Kerry on the Swifties allegations instead of sweeping under the rug/pooh poohing them/attacking the messenger, then the Kerry campaign may have actually been able to do something and John Kerry may have been the POTUS.”

The point here is the MSM is STILL acting the same way they did during the 2004 election. Only this time they’re collective heads in the sand is going to get a bunch of people killed instead of just their candidate losing an election.

singlemalt on July 17, 2006 at 10:19 PM

I edited Keller’s quote, snipping out a few words that made it longer than I wanted it to be but without changing the meaning of what he said. In context, Keller says what he says in Vent, but doesn’t say which side the press is on or which side it wants to win the war. He just says that it’s not neutral. Given that he doesn’t say which side the press is on, it’s up to us to figure it out, and the best way to do that is to examine the actions the press has taken since the war began.

Bingo.

thirteen28 on July 17, 2006 at 10:41 PM

PS my emphasis added to the above post ;)

thirteen28 on July 17, 2006 at 10:41 PM

ANYTHING – and I do mean absolutely ANYTHING – that is connected in any way with the NYTrash is immediately counted as a lie, wrong, stupid, false, disgusting, untrue, pathetic, & the opposite of what is written/shown…this even extends to the commercial for some vodka that was picked as “the best” by the NYTrash!

Why in the world would anyone ever believe a photo would be presented correctly? I am over any naivete where NYTrash is concerned.

How do the people who work there sleep at night? Because of the soldiers fighting to protect their precious RIGHTS. How can they face themselves in the mirror? They, as a group, have no shame, no consciences, no morals.

Putrid rag – hope it goes bankrupt!

blueskieswoman on July 18, 2006 at 3:34 AM

We could refer to them (NYT) as the enemy from within, but they have been on the other side for a while now, so just plain enemy will have to suffice.

chicagoray on July 18, 2006 at 7:23 AM

Is not “Giving aid and comfort to the enemy” called treason?
Or am I old fashioned?

ImpalaRob on July 18, 2006 at 7:54 AM

MSM is so busy trying to write history that they have failed to read history. Freedom of the press is one of the first freedoms to be removed when radials take over a government. “Popular” media personalities disappear, forever. The print media is no better. They are paper harlots that would sell their souls, if they had one, for a “Column inch,” in a national fish-gut wrapper. The talking heads are no better. One would think, and the talking heads don’t, that being pro-government would be the sensible course of action.

ImpalaRob on July 18, 2006 at 8:24 AM