[FDRfollower]

Everybody, the New York Times, the Wall St. Urinal, the Detroit Free Press, and others are writing articles that outright lie about the statements given by United Auto Workers president Gettelfinger at the UAW conference in Las Vegas.

His speech and booklet given out calls for universal health care, support of the Conyers/Bayh bankruptcy reform, expanding union organizing, and discusion of hybrid cars.

The "reporting" is taking one word "unsustainable", used by Gettelfinger to discuss globalization, and outright fabricate a story saying that he said that unions are the problem, say goodbye to pensions, benefits, jobs, etc.

Shame, shame! :nono:

[MAGI]

About the so called outrage of the controlling majority rethuglicans,

about that hahahahaha "liberal" New York Times article of bush & company tracing the "money" (as if it was unknown),

and with the NYT's :D "liberal reporting" prior to The Iraq Invasion and, :D liberal Robert Novak's treasonous outing of C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame,
The "liberal" :D NYT's
gets bashed and The Wall Street Journal remained unfaulted by "the Right Wing"...............
Hummmmmmmmmm

In case you missed this article, which is emphasized with color from me,

From BUZZFLASH:

"July 1, 2006

Hideous WSJ Editorial Board Inadvertently Proves NYT Set Up for Bushevik Red Meat Attack"

"A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

As we noted in our BuzzFlash editorial on Friday, "Darkness at Noon for Democracy," the Busheviks regularly launch Soviet Style demagogic attacks on scapegoats in order to seize more power.

In the last two weeks, the Stalinesque White House has been unrelenting in alternating between contrived propaganda aimed at instilling fear in the public and outrageous, unwarranted charges of treason for leaking (when the White House does it regularly, including outing a CIA operative specializing in tracking the sales of WMDs).

Little reported in regards to the totally calculated and Goebbels-like attack on the New York Times for publishing the bank transaction tracing story is that other papers printed similar stories, including the Wall Street Journal. But the White House is only having its brown shirt echo chamber focus on the New York Times.

Why? Well, despite the fact that the news section of the NYT has generally been an enabler of the Bush Administration (although that is starting to change a bit), the paper is a convenient scapegoat as the erroneous symbol of "the liberal media" to the Stepford right wing true believers of Bushevism.

The Wall Street Journal has always been schizophrenic. It has had a credible news section, with serious journalists doing top-notch reporting, while also having an editorial board that posts mostly fictional propaganda right out of the radical Republican message points of the day. As Eric Alterman pointed out in his book on the myth of the liberal media, the Wall Street Journal will write editorials that make factual claims that are completely contradicted by news stories on the front page of its paper. The Wall Street Journal editorial writers are hardline propagandists who indulge in creating factoids that meet the needs of their extreme ideology.

So it was not unexpected, but bizarre nonetheless, that the WSJ damned the NYT for printing essentially the same story that the Journal printed on the international tracing of banking transactions.

The WSJ inadvertently provides evidence that the NYT was set up by the White House. We quote from the WSJ editorial in question:

" Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a 'leak,' it was entirely authorized...."

We repeat, according to the WSJ, "If this was a 'leak,' it was entirely authorized...." Why would it be "authorized" for the Wall Street Journal, but not for the New York Times?

Because as they did with Dan Rather (and others), this was a Rovian set-up to create an issue they could demagogue on, down to having Dennis Hastert pass a House resolution condemning leaks at a time when the Wall Street Journal, the printing press for the radical right, was running the so-called "leak," with the full approval of the Bush Executive Branch, according to the WSJ Bushevik Politburo editorial board.

What more proof do we need that America is being manipulated by tyrants who seek to suppress a free press and democracy through the tactics of brown shirts?

If you want the proof, just go to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It's all there in black and white. They are such crazed extremists, they didn't even realize how much they revealed about the Bushevik tactics to seize total control of America.

But, it's too late now to delete.

The ink has dried."

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

[cat's meow]

I do have to debate you a little on this one, while I agree with most of it I think you have to take each writer for what they are at this point.

I am a big NYT fan, that is one of the things I miss about living in NY (the local edition of that paper). And I do understand how the Tribune group has not done anything to help an award winning editorial and investigative staff at the LAT (I grew up with) after Tribune took over the paper.

Wall Street Journal...I have generally liked this paper and do rely on it to give pretty solid 'business section' types of reports. The op ed pieces they have are actually good for the type of paper it is ("Wall Street" are operative words here), it is quite surprizing. If you cut and paste the articles from the NYT, WP, or LAT and made yourself a Wall Street Journal it would look virually the same as the WSJ you buy at the news stand. Eh, pretty solid paper for what it is, I cannot be critical. Overall the reporting has been good and overall the Bushanostra is very wrong about all this, all the papers named are pretty moderate when it comes dwon to it. Actually another one that you can find some good stuff in is the Christian Science Monitor. I just can't go with some of your argument here and you have to take every writer for what they are.

[MAGI]

I do have to debate you a little on this one, while I agree with most of it I think you have to take each writer for what they are at this point.

I am a big NYT fan, that is one of the things I miss about living in NY (the local edition of that paper). And I do understand how the Tribune group has not done anything to help an award winning editorial and investigative staff at the LAT (I grew up with) after Tribune took over the paper.

Wall Street Journal...I have generally liked this paper and do rely on it to give pretty solid 'business section' types of reports. The op ed pieces they have are actually good for the type of paper it is ("Wall Street" are operative words here), it is quite surprizing. If you cut and paste the articles from the NYT, WP, or LAT and made yourself a Wall Street Journal it would look virually the same as the WSJ you buy at the news stand. Eh, pretty solid paper for what it is, I cannot be critical. Overall the reporting has been good and overall the Bushanostra is very wrong about all this, all the papers named are pretty moderate when it comes dwon to it. Actually another one that you can find some good stuff in is the Christian Science Monitor. I just can't go with some of your argument here and you have to take every writer for what they are.

I do agree with you, I have posted many articles from the NYT's AND the Washington Post because they do publish Left and Right articles all of the time. They are not solely "liberal" as the Right claims over & over.
I, however, believe those papers lean furthur to the right than left and give that consideration when I read the editorials and op ed opinions of the varied writers they publish.

I recently heard the journalists in the field report their stories to the Editor (of the NYT's that is), including the sources of their stories and the Editor decides whether to run it or not..... and the story is presented as the editor(s) wish. I was surprised at that.
This info came about because there was something, doesn't come to mind at the moment, that both Judy Miller & the Editor regrets was not run.

I do not read the Wall Street Journal so only judge the articles provided, and speak about those.

It is so frustrating hearing how "liberal" all the media is, with the exception of Fox cable News. I find it simply is not true.

I also can't speak about the Christian Science Monitor, since I don't have access to it but would read it if I did.
:)