COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOVERNMENTSLAVES
‘We’re not losing touch’
New York Times CEO Mark Thompson said he doesn’t believe the paper’s coverage has a liberal bias and doesn’t believe the Times has “lost touch” with people in between America’s two coasts.
Not losing touch with what?
The security services?
American corporate interests?
The Israel Lobby?
No, you certainly are not losing touch with any of those folks.
Your bonds are likely stronger than ever, in fact.
As for, “he doesn’t believe the paper’s coverage has a liberal bias..."
Absolutely, it does not. There is nothing, absolutely nothing liberal about the New York Times, except in the minds of some Americans who are fixated with hating liberals, even though many of them could not define the word accurately.
Some of the things I see written in America about ‘liberals” resemble a Christian fundamentalist preacher’s rants about Satan. They are often, ipso facto, uninformed and silly.
America in fact has few genuine liberals living in it. A throbbing, fairly brutal world empire is about as far from being a cozy, sheltering home for liberals as you can get. Someone who might start out being liberal in America is before long hammered into a more acceptable form, but even if a person is not changed, he will have few outlets for his views and few audiences.
There can be nothing liberal about a newspaper which has consistently supported and promoted and lied about America's every war for decades and decades, none of those wars having anything to do with legitimate defense.
Or about a newspaper which passes all its Mideast stories by the official Israeli Censor for approval before running, a fact only recently revealed.
Or about a newspaper which keeps Thomas Friedman as a top columnist. Covered with Pulitzer Prizes - American journalism’s way of elevating questionable practitioners into unquestioned authority, even though we know it has been awarded to outright frauds in the past - Friedman has virtually never written an honest sentence in his life, except for all those many sentences when it is clear to all he is just doing advertising blurbs.
Or about a newspaper which has been caught playing footsie with the CIA a number of times. It was even been caught with CIA personnel on its staff. A newspaper, too, that has on a number of occasions used shabby FBI tips to publicly hound or persecute innocent people.
The New York Times has been described as the "official house organ” of America's power establishment.
That describes its function accurately, and there is nothing remotely "liberal" about that. The paper contains often enough good or interesting items to maintain the interest of that establishment and promote its own general reputation, but when it comes to the really important function of informing readers about what is behind great matters, the newspaper not only fails consistently, it works to the opposite purpose.
Too many people in America simply do not understand the origin or meaning of the word "liberal," yet they regularly complain or even rage about liberals. It is laughable.
The Clintons are not liberals. John Kerry is not liberal. Madeleine Albright is not liberal. The New York Times is not liberal. The Democratic Party is not liberal. Indeed, it is the War Party of a vast imperial enterprise, otherwise known as America.
Response to another comment:
“Objective reporting is not in their repertoire”?
And just where do you see that quality in America, anywhere in America?
It doesn't exist.