If today’s NYT editors were in charge in 1943. (h/t Andycanuck)
15 Replies to “Let Me Fix That Headline For You”
Brilliant. Like a dagger.
Interesting the use of the term ‘Final Solution’.
Brilliant! Well done.
The best satire has firm roots in reality.
The Sulzberger family has controlled the NYT since 1896 and the nuts never fall far from the tree and a Sulzberger is still in charge today.
From wikipedia:
Political persuasion overall
According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[89] In December 2004, a University of California, Los Angeles study by former fellows of a conservative think tank gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal.[90] The validity of the study has been questioned by various organizations, including the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[91] In mid-2004, the newspaper’s then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues such as permitting gay marriage. He stated that this bias reflected the paper’s cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of “hard news”, such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties, but did state that the paper’s coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the Bush administration.[92] The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.[93]
Print readership has now fallen to under 900 thousand a year and with any luck most of us should be around to read (or finger)the last edition. Any Newspaper that chooses activism over reporting deserves no less than the scrap heap of history.
Liberals viewing this are saying, ‘I don’t get it, what’s wrong with those headlines? Are they real?’
Great job.
It brings one question to mind though.
When did the media stop reporting truth and start spewing propaganda? Was it Watergate and the antiwar period or had it already begun slowly before that time?
One thing is certain. These types of lies were thankfully contained during WWII and in fact, truthful reporting helped us to win the war. It may also be why it has become so difficult to actually “win” wars in this day and age.
Frank Q. at November 24, 2012 3:24 PM
“One thing is certain. These types of lies were thankfully contained during WWII and in fact, truthful reporting helped us to win the war. It may also be why it has become so difficult to actually “win” wars in this day and age.”
That is a given.
I recall when we went into Grenada, the only media embedded or even close were the lads from “Soldier of Fortune”.
The MSM was excluded for 3 days, which they protested bitterly…when the operation was a “fete accompli”….when the “journalists” did arrive they posted desperately about seeking anyone, just anyone, who would denounce the operation, in frustrating futility.
Gulf I the media was held on an extremely tight leash, which they protested bitterly….excepting that CNN crew in Bahgdad who were obviously serving at the pleasure of Sadam.
Despite being largely flushed down the memmory hole, the exposure of the “JOURNOLIST”, was a signifigant advance of reality. Currently the mention of “JOURNOLIST” results in insult about spelling…….
When did the media stop reporting truth and start spewing propaganda? Was it Watergate and the antiwar period or had it already begun slowly before that time.
Posted by: Frank Q. at November 24, 2012 3:24 PM
Think Walter ‘the commie” Cronkite,but also that NYT clown(forgot the name,got a pulitzer)who was Stalin’s lap dog.
Right on sasquatch and Justthinkin.
Frank Q., just to add to what sasquatch and Justthinkin said. The origin of the Globe and Mail was the “Globe” and was started by George Brown in 1844. Brown was a liberal activist and the paper editorialized his liberal or Clear Grit views. So this sort of partisan news reporting has been around for quite some time.
Btw, the NYT useful idiot that idolized Stalin was Walter Duranty.
Yes, the Globe was founded by George Brown, originally as a Liberal party organ. The Mail and the Empire were Conservative papers, which merged to form the Mail and Empire. The Mail was apparently founded by SIr John A.
I have been told that of one pair of great grandparents, the great grandmother was a staunch Conservative and read the Mail and Empire like a bible. She fought frequently with her husband, my great grandfather, who naturally was an adherent of the Globe. They were aghast when the two merged.
The Mail and Empire was the more successful of the two. Just one of those stupid things that Conservatives do when we let down our guards and think that Liberals are human beings.
The Times would probably also call for stronger gun control. After all, government acts in the “public interest”, doesn’t it?
check ot the masthead statements; left side ‘all the news that fits our agenda”; right side “we do your thinking for you”; at least they were up front and in your face about the real mission of MSM then and now
Does anyone know where Sulzberger got the nickname Pinch?
Brilliant. Like a dagger.
Interesting the use of the term ‘Final Solution’.
Brilliant! Well done.
The best satire has firm roots in reality.
The Sulzberger family has controlled the NYT since 1896 and the nuts never fall far from the tree and a Sulzberger is still in charge today.
From wikipedia:
Political persuasion overall
According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[89] In December 2004, a University of California, Los Angeles study by former fellows of a conservative think tank gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal.[90] The validity of the study has been questioned by various organizations, including the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[91] In mid-2004, the newspaper’s then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues such as permitting gay marriage. He stated that this bias reflected the paper’s cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of “hard news”, such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties, but did state that the paper’s coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the Bush administration.[92] The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.[93]
Print readership has now fallen to under 900 thousand a year and with any luck most of us should be around to read (or finger)the last edition. Any Newspaper that chooses activism over reporting deserves no less than the scrap heap of history.
Liberals viewing this are saying, ‘I don’t get it, what’s wrong with those headlines? Are they real?’
Great job.
It brings one question to mind though.
When did the media stop reporting truth and start spewing propaganda? Was it Watergate and the antiwar period or had it already begun slowly before that time?
One thing is certain. These types of lies were thankfully contained during WWII and in fact, truthful reporting helped us to win the war. It may also be why it has become so difficult to actually “win” wars in this day and age.
Frank Q. at November 24, 2012 3:24 PM
“One thing is certain. These types of lies were thankfully contained during WWII and in fact, truthful reporting helped us to win the war. It may also be why it has become so difficult to actually “win” wars in this day and age.”
That is a given.
I recall when we went into Grenada, the only media embedded or even close were the lads from “Soldier of Fortune”.
The MSM was excluded for 3 days, which they protested bitterly…when the operation was a “fete accompli”….when the “journalists” did arrive they posted desperately about seeking anyone, just anyone, who would denounce the operation, in frustrating futility.
Gulf I the media was held on an extremely tight leash, which they protested bitterly….excepting that CNN crew in Bahgdad who were obviously serving at the pleasure of Sadam.
Despite being largely flushed down the memmory hole, the exposure of the “JOURNOLIST”, was a signifigant advance of reality. Currently the mention of “JOURNOLIST” results in insult about spelling…….
When did the media stop reporting truth and start spewing propaganda? Was it Watergate and the antiwar period or had it already begun slowly before that time.
Posted by: Frank Q. at November 24, 2012 3:24 PM
Think Walter ‘the commie” Cronkite,but also that NYT clown(forgot the name,got a pulitzer)who was Stalin’s lap dog.
Right on sasquatch and Justthinkin.
Frank Q., just to add to what sasquatch and Justthinkin said. The origin of the Globe and Mail was the “Globe” and was started by George Brown in 1844. Brown was a liberal activist and the paper editorialized his liberal or Clear Grit views. So this sort of partisan news reporting has been around for quite some time.
Btw, the NYT useful idiot that idolized Stalin was Walter Duranty.
Yes, the Globe was founded by George Brown, originally as a Liberal party organ. The Mail and the Empire were Conservative papers, which merged to form the Mail and Empire. The Mail was apparently founded by SIr John A.
I have been told that of one pair of great grandparents, the great grandmother was a staunch Conservative and read the Mail and Empire like a bible. She fought frequently with her husband, my great grandfather, who naturally was an adherent of the Globe. They were aghast when the two merged.
The Mail and Empire was the more successful of the two. Just one of those stupid things that Conservatives do when we let down our guards and think that Liberals are human beings.
The Times would probably also call for stronger gun control. After all, government acts in the “public interest”, doesn’t it?
check ot the masthead statements; left side ‘all the news that fits our agenda”; right side “we do your thinking for you”; at least they were up front and in your face about the real mission of MSM then and now
Does anyone know where Sulzberger got the nickname Pinch?