While looking for some reference to the Walter Reed scandal on the front page of the NYT I found this horrible pro-Bush puff piece here (check out the staged photos) and the following blurb shown below. Tell me, what do you find odd about these various stories from the tech section and from the business section.
Oh, and I could find no reference to the scandal.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4520 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Answer: There is nothing odd about those stories. This is merely one of those occasions where 3 different stories were tagged with the same categories.
You’ve been reading NYT Online long enough to know that’s a category list and not a TOC, John C. Stories appear under more than one category head every day.
That decaf doesn’t seem to be working out for you… 🙂
yesterday’s NYT story about Walter Reed:
http://tinyurl.com/3byq3s
If they don’t report first they ignore it.You know Bush had to go to Alabama because of the way Katrina was handled.BTW I read between 6 and 8 stories a day from Yahoos free NYTimes list.They have been consistently pro Bush on their news pages.Not so their OP-Ed section.
#3 – Billabong
“They have been consistently pro Bush on their news pages.Not so their OP-Ed section.”
Yeah, like the WSJ, they want to make sure everyone notices the firewall between Op-Ed and reportage.
Funny thing is, (and I read the print editions daily) the WSJ’s Op-Ed is as rabidly pro-corporatist as the NYT is the polar opposite – but the reportage in both papers is liberal, with a diff; the WSJ is more heartland populist and the NYT minority-champion multiculti. Funnier still, the WSJ’s reporters kiss less corporate ass than the NYT’s!
That puff piece is truly awful journalism. Totally sucks up to Bush. Who is that Sheryl Gay Stolberg writer – Judith Miller’s replacement on the Kiss Bushie Ass beat?
WTF, I didn’t read this as pro-Bush puff Those people were just devastated by a tornado, WTF DO YOU WANT. It’s what you expect of any president. And, yes he gets a few +points, SO WHAT.
But CRIPES, I am not a BUCH&CO supporter by far, I really dislike him. But, WTF, is your malfunction John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead of playing dolly with politicians faces on photoshop (concerned with the image, and not the substance) you should pay attention to the weight of matters. CRIPES, Hope this isn’t a reflection of you “ALL IMAGE no SUBSTANCE”. Did I say CRIPES already. JEESH.
I agree with what you say, John. It is a puff piece, constructed by the White House press office and dutifully regurgitated by the NYT and the rest of the non-analytical mainstream media. I do not doubt that he was upset by the deaths in Alabama. I do not, however seeing him all that broken up about the tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from his military incursions into the middle east. The dichotomy could blow a brain gasket. That’s why it’s a puff piece.
John, re: the “pro-Bush puff piece”
Seriously doubt that’s what it is. From the Times? Nahh….
Suggestion: Watch the caffeine consumption, you’re waaaaay too excitable…
BWilde
The aged proprietor is overreacting. Multiple categories for some articles is the norm, and, often accurate. That story about Starbucks was about business, tech and social behavior.
Billabong zeroed on the skinny about Bush and Alabama. All this coverage of the Alabama tornado victims is supposed to erase the profound blunders of the Bush administration regarding Hurricane Katrina. Plus, most of the victims are the ‘right’ color, thereby reassuring his constituency.
The WSJ bungles anything having to do with people of color, but unlike Lauren, I don’t see that as a positive thing. Apparently, their cluelessness pleases bigots like him, though. But, I think they lose credibility.