As far as I am concerned, being an employee, reporter, editor, manager, or owner of the New York Times is tantamount to membership in an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution.
As such, it should constitute revocation of American citizenship.
Yes, I mean the janitor too.
Should I ever have the misfortune to meet a reporter or photographer for the New York Times, I wouldn't piss on him or her if he, she, or it was on fire. I would only refrain from beating his, her, or its sorry ass with a 2x4 if I were in uniform and on the clock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/world/middleeast/29haifa.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
You can link from this story to the video the jihadist, err reporter, took and released to the world.
From a later article on the brou-haha
"Army commanders in Baghdad maintained that the Times violated a signed agreement, as a condition for being embedded with Leija's unit, not to publish images of any wounded soldier without the service member's consent. As a result, Times reporter Damien Cave and a contract photographer for the newspaper, Robert Nickelberg, were banned at least temporarily from embedding with U.S. units."
"Leija's immediate family in the South Texas town of Raymondville has declined to talk about the soldier's death. A cousin of Leija, who did not see the photo, said she was shocked that the images were made public and that they would add to the family's burden. Army officials said they were angered by the images."
You want to know how to support the troops?
Write the top ten advertisers of the New York Times, express to them that as long as they advertise in the NYT you will not purchase their products, and forward a copy of the letter to the NYT editorial board.
Some things are beyond the pale. Shooting footage of graphic deaths of American troops for advertising revenue, and then having the mendacity to claim that the US chain of command approved it? That's pretty damn despicable. But allowing a family to be notified of the death of their Soldier by streaming fucking video from a website? Kiss my ass.
As such, it should constitute revocation of American citizenship.
Yes, I mean the janitor too.
Should I ever have the misfortune to meet a reporter or photographer for the New York Times, I wouldn't piss on him or her if he, she, or it was on fire. I would only refrain from beating his, her, or its sorry ass with a 2x4 if I were in uniform and on the clock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/world/middleeast/29haifa.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
You can link from this story to the video the jihadist, err reporter, took and released to the world.
From a later article on the brou-haha
"Army commanders in Baghdad maintained that the Times violated a signed agreement, as a condition for being embedded with Leija's unit, not to publish images of any wounded soldier without the service member's consent. As a result, Times reporter Damien Cave and a contract photographer for the newspaper, Robert Nickelberg, were banned at least temporarily from embedding with U.S. units."
"Leija's immediate family in the South Texas town of Raymondville has declined to talk about the soldier's death. A cousin of Leija, who did not see the photo, said she was shocked that the images were made public and that they would add to the family's burden. Army officials said they were angered by the images."
You want to know how to support the troops?
Write the top ten advertisers of the New York Times, express to them that as long as they advertise in the NYT you will not purchase their products, and forward a copy of the letter to the NYT editorial board.
Some things are beyond the pale. Shooting footage of graphic deaths of American troops for advertising revenue, and then having the mendacity to claim that the US chain of command approved it? That's pretty damn despicable. But allowing a family to be notified of the death of their Soldier by streaming fucking video from a website? Kiss my ass.
posted by Just A Decurion at 2/01/2007 06:30:00 PM
2 Comments:
They have said that they are "sorry about hurting the feelings of the family"
They have said that they are "sorry about hurting the feelings of the family"
They've said quite a few things which aren't true.
Post a Comment
<< Home