It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYT: Reporters Not Allowed To Want U.S. To Win In Iraq

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
A New York Times reporter was admonished by his superiors for stating his personal views on the war in Iraq. In an interview on the Charlie Rose Show, NYT reporter Michael Gordon voiced his hope that the surge effort by the Bush administration would succeed.
 



www.foxnews.com
A New York Times reporter has been admonished by his superiors after voicing the hope that the U.S. can accomplish its goals in Iraq. Here's what Times chief military correspondent Michael Gordon said on The Charlie Rose show earlier this month — "As a purely personal view, I think it's worth it — one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

Public editor Byron Calame writes that Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman said Gordon "stepped over the line" and "went too far." Timeswatch.com points out that last summer Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar appeared on the Rose show, and criticized Bush administration practice of sending bombs to the Middle East — saying the policy "erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation." MacFarquhar received no reprimand for his comments.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Michael Gordon is not a Bush shill. He has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and of former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. Couple this with the fact that other NYT reporters being interviewed on the same show that have criticized the war effort have not been reprimanded, and this points to an outrageous example of censorship and left-wing media bias.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   


www.foxnews.com
A New York Times


something says there is more to this story....



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
This wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox news van being attacked at the anti-war rally in Washington DC would it? just wondering



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
This wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox news van being attacked at the anti-war rally in Washington DC would it? just wondering

What possible link do you see? I see none at all; the story is factual.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awake and All Seeing



www.foxnews.com
A New York Times


something says there is more to this story....


Well, actually there is. One of his bosses called his comments "abberant". I'm sure the exact quote will show up as the story is fleshed out.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

"As a purely personal view, I think it's worth it — one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

Men, you're in the fog. The high of troops were near 200.000, there was civil war, it reduced to 130.000, so what will 20.000 more will do? That's right, nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by the_sentinal
This wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox news van being attacked at the anti-war rally in Washington DC would it? just wondering

What possible link do you see? I see none at all; the story is factual.


The left-wing media bias was and is, the fuel for the anti-war rage which is the underlying theme to your post while being factual it represents the same anti-war rage that attacked the Fox news van. just an observation i guess.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
This wouldn't have anything to do with the Fox news van being attacked at the anti-war rally in Washington DC would it? just wondering


Do you see what kind of leftist nuts we have in this country? they would attack their own country men before they would allow them to defend your country.
Ignorance begets Ignorance.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I think the underlying issue in all this is that both FOX and the NYT are privately owned and therefore must represent the views and opinions of their respective owners.

That being said, the NYT can be a little extreme to the left sometimes. I remember reading letters to the editor where one reader suggested creating what amounted to "smokatoriums" to deal with the "smoker issue". Being an avid fan of Judge Dredd comics I was blown away as I have a copy where smokatoriums were the downfall of the bank robbers.

However, FOX is very well known to be extremely right wing at times and has always leaned in that direction.

If you ask me NYT+FOX=Divide and Conquer



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join