The Name Of The Enemy: The New York Times
I do not make this statement lightly. Not after watching Michelle Malkin's Vent or reading the following post from Little Green Footballs:
New York Times photographer Joao Silva was right there in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mahdi Army” tried to kill American troops: The New York Times - New York Region - Slide Show - Slide Show: Memorable Photographs.
Below that caption is a photograph of a member of the al-Sadr militia preparing to fire a Dragunov SVD Soviet-made sniper's rifle. And this was the caption below the picture, penned by the New York Times:
A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.
Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”
Incredible courage. That is how these morons describe what their reporters are doing. This photo journalist was there, during the fighting in Najaf, and he was amidst our enemy. As if that were not enough, the Times is pimping a new book by him:
Here’s a site where New York Times photographer Joao Silva is hawking a book about his uncomfortably close friendships with people who want to kill your neighbors, your sons, and your daughters: In the Company of God by award-winning New York Times photographer, Joao Silva.
In the Company of God is a photographic compilation that portrays Iraqi Shi’a Muslims in a period of occupation and transition. This photographic body of work, recorded over twelve months, richly captures the Shi’as’ intense commitment to their faith and their indomitable spirit of sacrifice.
About the pictures: The pictures in this book are not displayed in a chronological order but rather in a manner that best illustrates a narrative about faith, sacrifice, war and martyrdom.
They were taken while on assignment for The New York Times, from July 30 to November 3, 2003, from January 16 till April 1, 2004, from June16 until August 30, 2004, and again from January 18, 2005 until March 31, 2005.
Propaganda. That is what this is. While I appreciate the photo journalists and war correspondants going into a hot region, it is deplorable and detestable that these people opt to hang around with our enemy rather than coalition forces. And, of course, should they step the wrong way, and upset our enemy--let us say they end up like so many others and are beheaded or tortured to death--it will be the New York Times and other questionable outlets blaming the United States for the death of a journalist.
And Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom weighs in with a couple of thoughts. (welcome back Jeff after your continued hiatus thanks to the wacky U of A moonbat.)
Looks like the NYT has decided to go with neutrality over objectivity—essentially severing ties with their own country in the service of what they believe is a higher journalistic good: Pulitzer Prizes. ...
... Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.
Whereas what we’ve witnessed here is the product of (admittedly) dangerous opportunism in the service of plaudits and cocktail party invites.
But then, I’m still into the whole bourgeois nationalism thing. Just like a Nazi!
They say we should know our enemy on sight, and by name. And while the War on Terror presents us with unique opportunities when it comes to knowing our enemy on sight, the media in this country never seems to let us down. Or, they actually do, and bloggers welcome the continued beatings. The New York Times is a rag; a hack's rag, at that. And now we can add a question as to where their loyalties lie in the real world.
Bill Keller proclaimed on Charlie Rose's show that the New York Times was not neutral in this war:
It does not sit well with me at all. I have a large staff of people who work for me, who are not frivolous about this kind of matter, who are not unAmerican, who are in fact not agnostic or neutral in the War On Terror. We have...when I hear somebody yelling treason in a case like this, I want to have them go over, as I did in May, and visit our Baghdad bureau, where we've got people who put their own lives at risk to keep people informed about what's going on. Not just Americans, we've got a vast network of reporters and support staff who are Iraqis. You know, for us, the War On...
So, how would Mr. Keller spin this photo journalist's idea of neutrality? Do we, as Americans, really need to see this side of our enemy? Do we really need to see them shooting at our troops? Do we need to see them this up close and personal? Do we need to see the war from their point-of-view? The answer, in my opinion, is no, we do not. We do not care about what our enemy does, how they think, or what they think. That is a job for military intelligence, not for an American reporter. And if Mr. Silva is not American, I still do not care because he is bneing paid by an American newspaper for the pictures he takes.
The New York Times, with these photos, are not representing America in a war. They are pimping the enemy for a Pulitzer Prize. Do not get upset and threaten a boycott as they do not work. Cancel your subscriptions, and tell that rag to shape up, or close its doors. America does not need behavior such as this from the New York times. It is more than evident, now, that they are not as neutral as they claim. they are biased, and they are the enemy within.
Marcie
I do not make this statement lightly. Not after watching Michelle Malkin's Vent or reading the following post from Little Green Footballs:
New York Times photographer Joao Silva was right there in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mahdi Army” tried to kill American troops: The New York Times - New York Region - Slide Show - Slide Show: Memorable Photographs.
Below that caption is a photograph of a member of the al-Sadr militia preparing to fire a Dragunov SVD Soviet-made sniper's rifle. And this was the caption below the picture, penned by the New York Times:
A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.
Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”
Incredible courage. That is how these morons describe what their reporters are doing. This photo journalist was there, during the fighting in Najaf, and he was amidst our enemy. As if that were not enough, the Times is pimping a new book by him:
Here’s a site where New York Times photographer Joao Silva is hawking a book about his uncomfortably close friendships with people who want to kill your neighbors, your sons, and your daughters: In the Company of God by award-winning New York Times photographer, Joao Silva.
In the Company of God is a photographic compilation that portrays Iraqi Shi’a Muslims in a period of occupation and transition. This photographic body of work, recorded over twelve months, richly captures the Shi’as’ intense commitment to their faith and their indomitable spirit of sacrifice.
About the pictures: The pictures in this book are not displayed in a chronological order but rather in a manner that best illustrates a narrative about faith, sacrifice, war and martyrdom.
They were taken while on assignment for The New York Times, from July 30 to November 3, 2003, from January 16 till April 1, 2004, from June16 until August 30, 2004, and again from January 18, 2005 until March 31, 2005.
Propaganda. That is what this is. While I appreciate the photo journalists and war correspondants going into a hot region, it is deplorable and detestable that these people opt to hang around with our enemy rather than coalition forces. And, of course, should they step the wrong way, and upset our enemy--let us say they end up like so many others and are beheaded or tortured to death--it will be the New York Times and other questionable outlets blaming the United States for the death of a journalist.
And Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom weighs in with a couple of thoughts. (welcome back Jeff after your continued hiatus thanks to the wacky U of A moonbat.)
Looks like the NYT has decided to go with neutrality over objectivity—essentially severing ties with their own country in the service of what they believe is a higher journalistic good: Pulitzer Prizes. ...
... Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.
Whereas what we’ve witnessed here is the product of (admittedly) dangerous opportunism in the service of plaudits and cocktail party invites.
But then, I’m still into the whole bourgeois nationalism thing. Just like a Nazi!
They say we should know our enemy on sight, and by name. And while the War on Terror presents us with unique opportunities when it comes to knowing our enemy on sight, the media in this country never seems to let us down. Or, they actually do, and bloggers welcome the continued beatings. The New York Times is a rag; a hack's rag, at that. And now we can add a question as to where their loyalties lie in the real world.
Bill Keller proclaimed on Charlie Rose's show that the New York Times was not neutral in this war:
It does not sit well with me at all. I have a large staff of people who work for me, who are not frivolous about this kind of matter, who are not unAmerican, who are in fact not agnostic or neutral in the War On Terror. We have...when I hear somebody yelling treason in a case like this, I want to have them go over, as I did in May, and visit our Baghdad bureau, where we've got people who put their own lives at risk to keep people informed about what's going on. Not just Americans, we've got a vast network of reporters and support staff who are Iraqis. You know, for us, the War On...
So, how would Mr. Keller spin this photo journalist's idea of neutrality? Do we, as Americans, really need to see this side of our enemy? Do we really need to see them shooting at our troops? Do we need to see them this up close and personal? Do we need to see the war from their point-of-view? The answer, in my opinion, is no, we do not. We do not care about what our enemy does, how they think, or what they think. That is a job for military intelligence, not for an American reporter. And if Mr. Silva is not American, I still do not care because he is bneing paid by an American newspaper for the pictures he takes.
The New York Times, with these photos, are not representing America in a war. They are pimping the enemy for a Pulitzer Prize. Do not get upset and threaten a boycott as they do not work. Cancel your subscriptions, and tell that rag to shape up, or close its doors. America does not need behavior such as this from the New York times. It is more than evident, now, that they are not as neutral as they claim. they are biased, and they are the enemy within.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home