See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:18 am, happyscrapper said:

   How can the NYT justify this double standard? Someone needs to ask them for an explanation.

2. #2
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am, happyscrapper said:

   I do think it is right that the story was suppressed for the reporter’s safety. I just think that top secret information leaked from the WH should get the same treatment. In fact, more lives are at stake when secrets from the WH are leaked than just one reporter. And by the way, is anyone looking into WHO leaked those top secrets? Or will they get a “pass” like Sandy Burgler? Some people are getting away with treason, when they should instead be shot.

3. #3
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am, b-cat said:

   On the other hand, by keeping it quiet, if the enemy killed Rohde, we would never know.

   I still say they are a bunch of punks, our media. They have no regard for anyone’s necks but their own.

4. #4
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am, flmom said:

   “It was an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” Keller said in the CNN interview with Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. “But I also have a responsibility for the people who work for me. I send a lot of people out into dangerous places and their security is also part of my job.”

   So, Mr. Keller, you admit that part of your job description is also part of the Presidents.

5. #5
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 am, MarcoPolo said:

   Here’s a thought – maybe all that homeland insecurity we pay for should simply stop leaking sensitive information to freaking newspapers.

6. #6
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am, verogolfer said:

   alas, I don’t think the Times will ever learn its national security lesson – at least not when a Republican is in the White House. It’s commendable they care about the lives of their reporters, but they don’t care about the lives of others.

7. #7
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am, William Teach said:

   Will blabbermouth New York Times learn its national security lesson?

   No.

8. #8
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 am, rambler said:

   What a bunch of self serving hypocrites! The NYT needs to make an apology for all the Bush bashing, secret exposing and country damaging reporting. The daily writings on prisoner treatment and torture did not exempt them from having a reporter captured, but it did cause them to finally shut up. I can see that other media outlets gave more to protect the life of David Rohde than the NYT gives to protect the rest of us.

9. #9
   On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:36 am, d1carter said:

   This is the ultimate hypocrisy. There is no doubt that the NYT has committed a slow suicide. When will this end?

10. #10
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am, DBNinKY said:

    Is the safety of journalists more important than the safety of our military? The safety of our homeland?

    Exactly!

    I’d like for Mr. Keller to explain his paper’s justifications in seeking to have the interrogation photos released in light of the extreme measures they have taken to maintain a news blackout with the kidnapping, and how that would not be putting our military personnel in danger.

11. #11
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am, johnsteele said:

    Will blabbermouth New York Times learn its national security lesson?

    Are you kidding me? We’re talking about the safety of the nation here, not something important. /sarc

12. #12
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 am, cabrerski said:

    Ever notice how many awards are presented in industries that are dominated by leftists? Pulitzers, Oscars, Tonys, Emmys, etc.

    By presenting themselves with constant reminders how great they are, they prevent any self-introspection and guilt at what they truly are doing to the world.

13. #13
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 am, rusty_armor said:

    Like all liberals, the rules are for thee … they don’t need no rules …

14. #14
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 am, cheapseat said:

    GREAT ARTICLE MM! the tell all NYT has put thousands of our troops in very real danger with their views stories, but when it comes to their people they indeed can keep a secret. HYPOCRITES AND TRAITORS! i soooo hope this recession does this rag in.

15. #15
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm, swede said:

    …the terror-tipping blabbermouths of the New York Times have repeatedly undermined national security by disclosing sensitive/classified information about many key counterrorism programs.

    What about our distinguished congress wanting to publish classified photos and out the CIA’s counter terrorism programs? When national secrets become news, the news is our agents and soldiers are at risk and our enemies gain ground.

    Memo to NYT and Congress re national intelligence: Shut the hell up!

    Memo to Nanny P: We know who’s misleading who.

16. #16
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm, WrshpMzshn said:

    What became of the Afghan reporter and driver? Did Rohde go over the wall and leave them to their fate?

17. #17
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm, b-cat said:

    Did Rohde go over the wall and leave them to their fate?

    Wouldn’t blame him if he did. You know a dull rusty knife was in his future.

18. #18
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am, William Teach said:

    Will blabbermouth New York Times learn its national security lesson?

    No.

    And no.
    I also think it is right that the story was suppressed for the reporter’s safety-too bad those elitist don’t give the same consideration to others .

    Now that plastic bags are used for fish wrap why do we need the New York Times? Just a flyover asking.

19. #19
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm, tre said:

    The New York Slimes told about the Governments efforts to track terrorists money and phone calls because President George Bush was doing it. The hated him so much that the safety of troops didn’t matter.

    But, the safety of one of their own is so important to them that they could keep that secret.

    Besides, Pulitzers aren’t handed out for reporting on reporters.

20. #20
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    What became of the Afghan reporter and driver?

    They don’t work for the Times, so the NYT can blab about them now…

21. #21
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm, Ron said:

    What many fail to realize is that the NY Times views itself as its own independent entity. Therefore, it has no responsibility toward the United States of America. In their view…

22. #22
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm, iamsaved said:

    Always wondered why the Bush Admin allowed the Times to get away with treason.

    The quicker these liberal traitors go out of business the better.

    Guess one can only dream though. If they go bankrupt because no one wants their product, Obama will “bail” them out and turn them into a government owned propaganda machine that would make Goebbels proud.

23. #23
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm, BobonStatenIsland said:

    The ememy seem to be the only people actually reading Pravda (The New York Times) these days and thier circulation and stock value reflect that.

24. #24
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm, swede said:

    iamsaved said: If they go bankrupt because no one wants their product, Obama will “bail” them out and turn them into a government owned propaganda machine that would make Goebbels proud.

    Affirmative. And already becoming reality. The good news is The One is sinking fast in job approval polls. I’m still hopeful congress can be reigned in by 2010 and stop the damage…if its not already too late by then.

25. #25
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm, Flyoverman said:

    In the NT Times eyes, dead reporters are not acceptable; dead soldiers is just part of the cost of doing business.

26. #26
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm, JonR said:

    I sincerely hope that this story will finally drive a stake through the heart of this perverted newspaper and close it down! The double-standard hypocrisy is without measure and needs to be stopped! I agree with the comment here that the NYT thinks it is an entity above any regulation whatsoever.
    Anyone that continues to buy this newspaper or purchase products from its sponsors is an accomplice to the worst form of propaganda and journalistic perversion!!

27. #27
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    iamsaved said: If they go bankrupt because no one wants their product, Obama will “bail” them out and turn them into a government owned propaganda machine that would make Goebbels proud.

    They pretty much are and I imagine Gobbles is having other problems at the moment. But cheer up: BroBama will eventually run out of our money–it only took the Soviet Union 75 years to crumble.

    I think his, BroBama, prototype for a Green Car is the 1975 Trabant–a nice efficient 2 stroke lawnmower engine extra-push bar standard. The common name was a Stasimobile. Yes sir, lots of people were hauled off to the gulag in a Stasimobile.

    So cheer up good people–there will lots of Security soon and no unpleasant stories allowed to bother the proletariat-(that would be those NOT in William Ayres camps). Mr. Sulzberger, New York Times publisher, just might find himself in one of those camps–they do turn on their own

    Keep your powder dry good people.

28. #28
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm, pabarge said:

    Anyway, the answer to your question in the title of this blog entry is “no.”

29. #29
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm, zyzzyg said:

    Yep, it’s about being consistent. Who doesn’t like consistentcy?

30. #30
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm, GraniteMan said:

    “It was an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” Keller said in the CNN interview with Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. “But I also have a responsibility for the people who work for me. I send a lot of people out into dangerous places and their security is also part of my job.”

    Too bad our troops and nation are not people who work for them because our troops are certainly in more dangerous places than their reporter.

31. #31
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm, Sergeant Tim said:

    ‘No’ is the answer to your title question.

32. #32
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm, Papa Louie said:

    It’s easy to betray people you don’t know to get a Pulitzer prize; it’s another story when it’s one of your own.

    The same thing goes for “harsh interrogation.” They would never support it to save millions of faceless people. If it happens, at least it reduces humanity’s carbon footprint. But let it be someone they know and love that’s at risk and watch them suddenly advocate torture as a moral imperitive.

33. #33
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm, Papa Louie said:

    Keller said Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera was planning a story on Rohde but agreed to hold it at the Times’ request.

    Hmmm, I wonder what information the Times withheld from publication to secure cooperation from Al-Jazeera?

34. #34
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm, Lumberman said:

    Since I do not subscribe or purchase the New York Times I need to know who advertises with them so I can boycot their products as I do Pepsi products, Ford (even though they stopped), and McDonalds (even though they stopped). Once something objectionable to me is stopped, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I would rather support businesses that remain neutral in social matters from the git go.

35. #35
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm, RetFireman said:

    Well, considering they are nothing but an enormous conglomeration of Liberals, the hypocrisy should come as a surprise to no one. After all, as I have said many times in the past:

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberalism.

36. #36
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm, sbw999 said:

    Anybody but a liberal journalist, and that story gets published. The Times is a corrupt rag.

37. #37
    On June 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 pm, Marc said:

    Bill Keller and the New York Times will never learn any lessons from its unrequited love affair with Islamic fanatics. Only this morning, The Times invited antiIsrael fanatic Tony Judt to write an oped piece which called for the end of the State of Israel and its replacement with a “binational” (read Muslim majority) state. Judt was in all probability invited to write his oped by Andrew Rosenthal, the proArab editorial page director at the Times. Judt argued that the Palestinian state that will emerge in the West Bank needs its own military to deter Israeli aggression. According to Judt, all the rockets and missiles that Iran gave Hamas for its Gaza democracy are purely defensive in nature. So on the very day that a New York Times reporter is rescued from an Islamic mob, the Times invited a veteran Israel hater to pen a poisonous oped which embraced Muslim fundamentalist movesments like Hamas and Hezbollah. Andrew Rosenthal is a product of the nepotism that prevails at the Times. Otherwise, he would be in some one horse town covering the square dance at the local grange hall.

38. #38
    On June 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 am, simcoe said:

    …it enlisted the aid of other media outlets in suppressing the news of Rohde’s seven-month captivity — and even convinced al Jazeera to keep quiet:… and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, followed suit at the Times’ request.

    The NY Times, The AP, and al Jazeera sliding under the sheets together. Let your mind wander and just try to figure out what on earth could the future consideration be that the Times could promise al Jazeera for their complicity in this particular suppression?

    Was the AP complicit with al Jazeera as well? Its doubtful that under those sheets each one kept its presence a secret from the other.

    One wouldn’t be surprised that al Jazeera was well practiced in the art of deliberate and biased news suppression, but now the Times and the AP have stepped out of the smelly closet and lowered themselves to the same level. Now the Times and the AP no doubt think al Jazeera to be a credible source.

39. #39
    On June 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 am, kcnut said:

    Die pinch die.

40. #40
    On June 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 am, graysonret said:

    Ever since the 2nd newspaper came out to compete with the 1st newspaper, politics and making money have been the priorities. The liberal win, last November, seems, to the NYT, to justify their positions. As long as people continue to buy their papers, they will continue their sensationalism. In their view, they think the majority of people agree with them. Only when people stop buying and critisize their “leaks” and unpatriotic editorials, will they stop.

41. #41
    On June 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    And can you imagine how the NY Times would have responded if some other news source leaked the story about that reporters kidnapping?

    Safety is important for it’s own people apparently, but our military is expendable in their minds if it means a good headline. What scum.

    And I find it interesting that Al-jazeera would cooperate with the NY Times. Birds of a feather perhaps? Translation: Both are Terrorist Sympathizers.

42. #42
    On June 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    graysonret said:

    As long as people continue to buy their papers, they will continue their sensationalism. In their view, they think the majority of people agree with them. Only when people stop buying and critisize their “leaks” and unpatriotic editorials, will they stop.

    In The Socialist Republic of New York City, a majority DO agree with them. Which is what keeps them going. But readership IS down because anyone with a sense of right and wrong understands the bias of the Times and the damage they have done to this country. The NY Times in on the financial ropes. We can only hope that they fail as punishment for their traitorous actions.