SD Jarhead Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Although they've always been known as Left-Wing hacks, this stinks: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm Edit: Sorry if this isn't about McCain telling a gook joke while he was incarceratd in the Hanoi Hilton. You'll have to forgive me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 NYT editors are free to publish & refuse to publish anything they feel like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I wonder who has the higher subscription/viewership, Drudge or the NYT. It looks like JM editorial will get read by a few folks. New York Times, which reported weekday circulation of 1,136,433 and Sunday circulation of 1,680,582. Its weekday circulation is up 0.2 percent from the same period last year. VISITS TO DRUDGE 7/21/08 014,502,587 IN PAST 24 HOURS 513,882,905 IN PAST 31 DAYS 6,005,492,013 IN PAST YEAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I wonder who has the higher subscription/viewership, Drudge or the NYT. It looks like JM editorial will get read by a few folks. New York Times, which reported weekday circulation of 1,136,433 and Sunday circulation of 1,680,582. Its weekday circulation is up 0.2 percent from the same period last year. VISITS TO DRUDGE 7/21/08 014,502,587 IN PAST 24 HOURS 513,882,905 IN PAST 31 DAYS 6,005,492,013 IN PAST YEAR I know it's NJSue's birthday and all, so your post is a fitting tribute. I wonder how many people visit the NYTimes website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I know it's NJSue's birthday and all, so your post is a fitting tribute. I wonder how many people visit the NYTimes website. My point was that its no big deal that The NYT wouldn't print it. Its still going to get read by plenty of folks. Thanks for the heads up on the Birthday BF, you two have fun. Oh, and wear a condom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 My point was that its no big deal that The NYT wouldn't print it. Its still going to get read by plenty of folks. Thanks for the heads up on the Birthday BF, you two have fun. Oh, and wear a condom. I just enjoyed your statistical ruse. Condoms suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Why doesn't McCain submit his writing to the NY Post? I'm sure they'll be glad to print it & disparage Obama in the same paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Although they've always been known as Left-Wing hacks, this stinks: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm Edit: Sorry if this isn't about McCain telling a gook joke while he was incarceratd in the Hanoi Hilton. You'll have to forgive me. Well, NYT does have a point that McCain's reads more like a "trash Obama" than a "this is my plan" piece - and it shouldn't take more than a few hours for McCain to submit his piece. Oh, the "fairness doctrine" has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Last I heard the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with print media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Well, NYT does have a point that McCain's reads more like a "trash Obama" than a "this is my plan" piece - and it shouldn't take more than a few hours for McCain to submit his piece. Oh, the "fairness doctrine" has nothing to do with it. McCain's entire campaign right now is reactive. It's hardly surprising that his editorial would have the tone of an attack piece, since all he's done recently is respond to Obama. Of course, given the ridiculous imbalance in coverage in favor of Obama (I heard this morning he gets 50-75% more 'coverage' than McCain does), McCain's campaign doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. And if anyone thinks the NYT's coverage of McCain is unfair now...I've heard rumors about the "October Surprise" they've been sitting on for weeks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 McCain's entire campaign right now is reactive. It's hardly surprising that his editorial would have the tone of an attack piece, since all he's done recently is respond to Obama. Of course, given the ridiculous imbalance in coverage in favor of Obama (I heard this morning he gets 50-75% more 'coverage' than McCain does), McCain's campaign doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. And if anyone thinks the NYT's coverage of McCain is unfair now...I've heard rumors about the "October Surprise" they've been sitting on for weeks... Nice to see you around, Boom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 McCain's entire campaign right now is reactive. It's hardly surprising that his editorial would have the tone of an attack piece, since all he's done recently is respond to Obama. Of course, given the ridiculous imbalance in coverage in favor of Obama (I heard this morning he gets 50-75% more 'coverage' than McCain does), McCain's campaign doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. And if anyone thinks the NYT's coverage of McCain is unfair now...I've heard rumors about the "October Surprise" they've been sitting on for weeks... Care to enlighten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 Actually this election is all but over. It seems to be in the cards that The Messiah is going to be the next President. I will be shocked if that isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Care to enlighten? Not really. It's "friend of a friend" stuff that I don't even give much credence myself. The only reason I haven't put it out of my mind is the persistent worry that the Times would actually consider sitting on a story for about six months just to influence the election. I really hope the rumors I've heard are wrong, otherwise the NYT may as well change their slogan to "All The News That's Fit To Manipulate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Not really. It's "friend of a friend" stuff that I don't even give much credence myself. The only reason I haven't put it out of my mind is the persistent worry that the Times would actually consider sitting on a story for about six months just to influence the election. I really hope the rumors I've heard are wrong, otherwise the NYT may as well change their slogan to "All The News That's Fit To Manipulate". Just do us a favor, if/when it pops, let us know if it was what you heard. I'd be curious if there really was an Oct suprise and the Times sat on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Just do us a favor, if/when it pops, let us know if it was what you heard. I'd be curious if there really was an Oct suprise and the Times sat on it. I will...but no one would believe me anyway. The woman I heard it from is a bit of a nut bar anyway...otherwise, I'd at least drop a hint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 I will...but no one would believe me anyway. The woman I heard it from is a bit of a nut bar anyway...otherwise, I'd at least drop a hint. Does it have anything to do with a goat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts