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.

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.

…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.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberalism.

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?

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.

“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.