O’Reilly Falsely Claims NYT Failed To Cover JFK Terror Plot On Front Page
O’Reilly Falsely Claims NYT Failed To Cover JFK Terror Plot On Front Page
Bill O’Reilly calls the New York Times “quasi-socialistic” and has placed the newspaper on his enemies list. Last night, he devoted an entire segment of his show to attacking the Times for not covering the arrests made in an alleged JFK airport terrorist plot on the front page.
“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on — ready — page 37, right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant,” O’Reilly said. He claimed the Times “isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11.”
O’Reilly explained the conspiracy: “The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point,” and since the Times “desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again.” O’Reilly called this “the hallmark of the far left.” Watch it:
One problem: the New York Times did cover the JFK terror plot on the front page of its Sunday edition. You wouldn’t know it from watching O’Reilly, who chose to show only the top fold of the front page during his broadcast. “Now I’m not making this up,” he told his viewers. “You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact.” But O’Reilly is lying.
Here’s the front page as shown on O’Reilly:
But the Sunday New York Times did feature a headline on the alleged JFK terror plots on its front page. It was just below the fold, which O’Reilly chose to hide.
Transcript:
O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Relax, the war on terror is not that big of deal. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo.
Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK Airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don’t be alarmed. According to John Edwards and The New York Times, this is no big deal.
In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.
Now apparently The Times isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11. On page one of Sunday’s New York Times was this story. Some poor people in India making bricks.
Now I’m not making this up. You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact. On page one, The New York Times instead of the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.
Now why did The New York Times do that? It’s not hard to figure it out. The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts.
Since The New York Times desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, The Times is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again. Then The Times will say despite the fascism of the Bush administration, it could not protect us.
So The Times wins both ways. The paper diminishes the war on terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush.
Now this is the hallmark of the far left. We saw it again last night in the Democratic debate when the far left candidate John Edwards once again called the war on terror a bumper sticker.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This guy is such an idiot. How can you Fox News fans give this guy your eyes and ears on a nightly basis? He lies to you constantly to get you to believe crap that simply isn’t true.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIn billy’s defense, maybe he he only glanced at the Sunday Times at the news stand while he was buying porn.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmO’Rielly lieing? No way. He is an affirmed seeker of the truth!!!!
Please excuse me, I just threw up.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pmHow someone with such little credibility is given such a pulpit to spew his crap from is a blight on our democracy.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:32 pmSo…O’Reilly lies about the NYT coverage of the latest of the administration’s lies.
Weird kind of symmetry there…
June 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmif you don’t do what bill wants, you hate america. If you don’t approve of the wars, you must be a terrorist, if you don’t love bush, you must be a socialist.
These people make me sick – constantly spewing the propaganda. Personally, I think the whole terror plot was a sham to build up fear, but that’s another issue.
All this guy, and plenty others in the media, seems to do is try to tell us how we should hate ideas he opposes. But, the reality is much different….it’s people like O’Reilly that act with complete hatred for everything this country stands for…
Some interesting reading:
“The America-Haters Strike Again”
June 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/the_america_haters_strike_again
It’s not O’Reilly’s fault that he can’t read…(it’s the secular progressive’s fault)
June 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmO’Reilly is always spewing nonsense, so ignore him.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmA magazine with a centerfold and a falafel O’Reilly can handle.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmA newspaper with a fold and a story completely baffles him.
He brought Colbert into this?
The difference between O’Reilly and Colbert: Colbert would run the same story, then the on-screen graphics would show how what he said is a lie. That makes it funny. O’Reilly? Well he just lies.
Once again, parody has more “truthiness” than the real deal. O’Reilly is sad and pathetic.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmPlease don’t call me a troll or a Republican for this but, he is right – the article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
I receive the print version of the Times. I remember thinking, that’s good – they’ve put this on page 37 instead of on the front page, because, if previous terror scares are any indication, within 48 hours this will have been downgraded from “the end of the world” to “cheesy”.
Think Progress can do better, and 99 percent of the time does.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pm“O’Reilly Falsely Claims…” Like I haven’t seen that a thousand times. Do I really need to read after that? Do you really expect me to? Can we just conclusively declare him a propagandist and be done with it?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI’m not a fan of O’Really or Faux, but from the picture given us of below the fold I cannot make out much of a headline or whether the story is “covered” on the front page.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pmWasn’t it an old cliche that broadsheet readers were smarter than tabloid readers? You know, smart enough to flip the darn thing over?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm…(it’s the secular progressive’s fault)
Comment by kelso
____________________________
Oh, thanks a lot! I’m trying to forget O’Reilly’s rant about this and my own ridiculous yelling at the TV telling the buffoon what he can do with what for how long and to what degree of force.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmSo what’s the big deal? He’ll just issue a correction and an apology, right?
…. Right?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmBelly O’Really lost it when he saw the picture of the third world adobe brick-maker, jealous because he knows he’ll never even get his picture in the Times.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pmeddy tompkins and leftcoast are correct. That is not front-page coverage. That is a below-the-fold blurb (not even the lede paragraph of an article) referring readers to the interior “Metro” section of the paper, where the article was placed.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmI expect a retraction on tonight’s show
right after the ant stands on his hind legs and converses with me
June 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmSSDD
June 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmO’Reilly is a liar. Plain and simple.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThat is not front-page coverage. That is a below-the-fold blurb (not even the lede paragraph of an article) referring readers to the interior “Metro†section of the paper, where the article was placed.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Wow. What’s the weather like where you are Exley? You know, a place where something printed on the front page is “not front-page coverage”?
Bet it’s nice and balmy. And I bet the mnargaritas are s-s-s-strong.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmPlease don’t call me a troll or a Republican for this but, he is right – the article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
Apparently the Times suspected, correctly, that this new “terror plot” would turn out to be as meaningful and credible as the “Fort Dix Pizza Deliveryman Caper”. As Keith Olbermann pointed out, BuschCo uses “terror plots” so often for political gain, it’s getting almost impossible to not doubt them when they claim they’ve disrupted yet another one.
What will it be next, gay guys in Alabama plotting to shut down a Hooters?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmBTW, Dild O’Reilly is a moron.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmthe article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
Comment by eddy tompkins — June 5, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Hey eddy. Glad you could join us. No troll bashing or flame throwing from me (I leave that for Jake, Daryll, michael, and a few others)
Just wanted to point out that O’Leily stated
“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant.”
Which is false. Mr.Keller put the JFK story on page 1, then continued the article on page 37 (which the Times usually does).
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmAgain, O’Liely lied.
Had he said “notice that the JFK story was delegated to a small space on the NY Times front page”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and Billy Boy could be harassing an intern with a falafel.
Exley
And O’Reilly in his “fair and balanced” manner gave the full details of how the story was presented? Or did he leave out some information to insure that the people “decide” about the NYT the way he wanted?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pm#17 This is a ridiculous semantic distinction. Readers are alerted to the story on the front page. That is front page coverage. Get over it.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmthe interior “Metro†section of the paper, where the article was placed.
Where local news always goes in the NYT, with one awful exception that I can recall.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pm“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.”
This is not a lie, the story was not on the front page, it was on page 37 just as OReilly stated. There was a quick blurb on the front page, but no story.
The real question is that why would the NY Times not put the story as the lead story on the front page?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pmCan the story be found on Page one? Is the story on Page one Exley?
The assertion and statement by Dildo Oreilly is it is not on page one, it is on page 37. He is wrong and you are wrong.
Checkmate.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pmTerror plot. What a joke, this ‘terror plot’, just like all the other terror plots since 9/11, are nothing but a thinly veiled attempt by BushCo to scare the American public into following them blindly. So, in the past two days there have been two stories out of Iraq proving that BushCo has no intention of leaving Iraq. Ever.
These terror plots are just a distraction.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pmIn billy’s defense, maybe he he only glanced at the Sunday Times at the news stand while he was buying porn.
Hey, Billy’s doesn’t “buy” porn. He only rents it.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pmO’reilly did say the story wasn’t on page one, which is false, had he said the story was placed below the fold, and not headlined that would have been correct, but he didn’t. Exley I don’t know why you would defend O’Reilly. I don’t think you have anything in common with him.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIn fairness, Billo probably never reads newspapers–so this could have been an honest mistake.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmand rupert’s gonna put those journalistic credentials to work on the wall street journal.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pmHeterodoxy, that’s “Dild O’Reilly”…
June 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIt looks like the story begins on page one, y’all. It’s right there.
It also appears that the story got all the coverage it deserved — and more.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThe real question is that why would the NY Times not put the story as the lead story on the front page?
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
How many complex front page stories are completely discussed on the front page and not continued on another page?
That’s right – none.
They all start out on the front page, like this story did, and continue elsewhere in the paper.
Read a few and see what I’m talking about.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmHey, for an alleged News outfit that thinks all blacks look alike tihs kind of crap is a step up for their coverage.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#24 Hey DRxJ,
“Mr.Keller put the JFK story on page 1, then continued the article on page 37.”
Technically, that is not correct. The article is not “continued” on page 37. It begins on page 37. What you see (barely…clever of TP to make the image so small that we can’t readily make out what it says) is a “See Inside” blurb referring readers to another section of the paper, the “Metro” Section.
Essentially what The Times did is treat the story like movie review — “See review of ‘Spider-Man 3′ in the “Arts & Leisure Section.”‘
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmO’Reilly makes a couple million a year but they apparently can’t afford fact checkers at Fox Noise.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThis is not a lie, the story was not on the front page, it was on page 37 just as OReilly stated. There was a quick blurb on the front page, but no story.
Comment by timmmmmehhh!! — June 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Okay timmy.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pmReal simple.
was it on the front page, or not???
Hmmmm…..the story should have been above the fold, head line news. And I believe this was O’Reilly’s point.
Everyone knows that the on the front page above the fold are the headlines that the paper wants people to read first.
The New York Times, yes a pro-Democratic party paper, I know, I am the greatest President ot have ever set foot on the Oval Office rug, is against the war on terror and just like my quarky, good looking, $400 dollar hair cut Edwards, it believes it is a bumper sticker.
The New York Times knows that stories like this are good news for President Bush, and we can’t have any good news for Bush, we just can’t.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pm“The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts.”
ROTFLMAO.
Come on Bildo, this is just lame. Talk about “no spin”…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pmHeterodoxy,
“Can the story be found on Page one? Is the story on Page one Exley?”
No. A blurb — not even the lede paragraph — referring readers to another section of the paper is found below the fold on page one. The article does not appear until page 37, outside of the paper’s main section, in the “Metro” section.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmPeople, think about it. Was this ‘terror plot’ deserving of front page NYT coverage. Personally I think not. Pizza delivery boys attacking Fort Dix – a place where there are trained, gun-toting soldiers. Lighting a match as some pipe 40 f*cking miles from JFK? Come on.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI sent an email to his address, asking how he could possibly spew such lies and claim to be better than the colbert report…ha
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm#30 Namtillaku is 100% correct. The propaganda news conference stated they thwarted a devaststing catastrphe that would have blown up 40 mile pipeline, airport, resevior, and boroughs eclipsing 9/11. Either they are incompetent law enforcement retards given it is IMPOSSIBLE for those events to occur based on pipeline structure, stop gaps, and physics OR they intentionally lied to promulgate a lie.
You decide if we have incompetent ‘leaders’ or fear propagandists.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmtimmy,
because as weve found out, it is, like many of the other ‘terror’ arrests lately, there’s not really much to talk about. The plan would never have worked.
Plus, why don’t you guys get this? These whackos that want to do these things, are looking for headlines. It legitimizes them. If we show them that there attempts to harm us will not get them headlines, it does take away some of the motivation. They need the headlines to make what they do effective at all. NYT did the right thing by putting the ’story’ on the back page, but leading it on the front page.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmDont you think O’rielly is becoming increasingly irrelevant?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmDon’t believe me? Then let the events speak for themselves…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmEssentially what The Times did is treat the story like movie review — “See review of ‘Spider-Man 3′ in the “Arts & Leisure Section.â€â€˜
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
That’s your actual point Exley – that this story wasn’t treated like the end of the world news story in which you see it.
I highly recommend George Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of an Elephant” to help you understand your mindset versus the Progressive mindset, in which this isn’t as important as you think it is.
It cmes down to opinion, not fact for your outrage. And it’s manipulated opinion based in the fact that you cons think the world is a relatively bad place where you need a strict father figure to protct you. We see the world as a relatively good place (reality supports us actually), where living and let living works better than picking fights just to justify having an army of body guards.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmSo what’s the big deal? He’ll just issue a correction and an apology, right?
…. Right?
Comment by KRank — June 5, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
for what?
and the same correction and apologies that the New York Times issues when they are caught lying and reporting the wrong thing? Takes the NYT over a month and then they put it in tiny letters on page 37. this is how the NYT issues corrections.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmPoor child Exley, you are embarrassing yourself. No amount of semantic spin can prove your false statement. The headline and ORIGIN is found on page one. That is fact in Rape-Public-Can world.
Just be a man and answer the question — can it be found on page 1/
CHECKMATE.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI really hope Colbert picks up on this. That will be a funny bit!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmO’Reilly wants the story on page one to scare the American people so they’ll be more willing to follow King George blindly.
Osama wants the American people to be scared so that more Americans will be willing to give up their liberties.
O’Reilly wants American troops to stay in Iraq until the war on terror is won (meaning forever).
Osama wants American troops to stay in Iraq forever for target practice and to increase the hatred towards Americans.
O’Reilly and Osama have similar goals.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmO’Reilly = terrorist-lover
Exley,
I’m going to have to say….WRONG.
It appears to be a headline, with a long paragraph that then continues on page 37.
So yes, it is a headline on page one (a wraparound headline, but a headline none the less)
but I do agree, it’s hard to read. But why didn’t O’liely point this out to begin with?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThis is not a lie, the story was not on the front page, it was on page 37 just as OReilly stated. There was a quick blurb on the front page, but no story.
Comment by timmmmmehhh!! — June 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Okay timmy.
Real simple.
was it on the front page, or not???
Comment by DRxJ — June 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
OkDR.stupid,
June 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmReal Simple
was it on the front page ABOVE the fold or not????
You decide if we have incompetent ‘leaders’ or fear propagandists.
Comment by Heterodoxy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Can I vote for both options? :D
June 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pmHow many complex front page stories are completely discussed on the front page and not continued on another page?
That’s right – none.
They all start out on the front page, like this story did, and continue elsewhere in the paper.
Read a few and see what I’m talking about.
Comment by unbelievable
You are right. I just think that a paper based in a city that had 9/11 should give more coverage of a thwarted terror plot that would have blown up an airport in that city.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pmPoor child Exley, you are embarrassing yourself. No amount of semantic spin can prove your false statement. The headline and ORIGIN is found on page one. That is fact in Rape-Public-Can world.
Just be a man and answer the question — can it be found on page 1/
CHECKMATE.
Comment by Heterodoxy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Just answer the question, my Dumbcrat tool, can it be found on page 1 ABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pmOkay timmy.
Real simple.
was it on the front page, or not???
Comment by DRxJ
Show me where OReilly lied.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmAll you right wing idiots are just fu@king crazy. Your trying to tell me that that this warrents front page news? Some facts about the JFK “Terror” plot:
John Goglia, a former member of National Transportation Safety Board, said that if the plot had ever been carried out, it would likely have sparked a fire but little else, and certainly not the mass carnage authorities described.
Even if the attackers had managed to blow up a fuel tank, the impact would be limited, he said, citing the example of North Vietnamese forces attacking US fuel dumps during the Vietnam war.
“They hit the fuel tanks with pretty big rockets. You would get a big fire but not a big explosion other than the rocket.”
“There is a difference between just exploding the tank and a huge explosion. The tank may explode and blow up some metal, but that certainly wouldn’t go very far,” he said.
His comments contrasted with those of US Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who insisted at the weekend that “the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable.”
Jake Magish, an engineer with Supersafe Tank Systems, also cast doubt on the credibility of the plot, saying: “The fantasy that I’ve heard about the people saying ‘they will blow the tank and destroy the airport,’ is nonsense.”
“There are people there responding to hysteria, I think. But from an engineering point of view, if someone is successful in blowing a hole into a tank, they will just have a fire from one tank.
“There is no way for the fire to go from tank to tank, that is nonsense. It just won’t happen.”
Besides the alleged plotters’ capability, other questions have focused on the main source in the probe — a convicted drug dealer who infiltrated the group and whose sentence was pending as part of his cooperation with police.
Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was.
“There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases,” he said. “To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia,” he said.
The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmPresident Clinton/valianttheloser,
“and the same correction and apologies that the New York Times issues when they are caught lying and reporting the wrong thing?”
I assume, as per usual, you have no facts to back this assertion?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmOMG – ALL of you arguing about where the article appears in the paper are completely missing the point here. Wake up – PLEASE!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
June 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmSo O’Reilly would have us believe that the Time is biased…because they didn’t post a story that enforces the Republican image on the very front page of the paper in a position that O’Reilly clearly felt it would be more visible?
Does O’Reilly still believe that he is the one who is unbiased and everyone else is the “loony left”? I mean, O’Reilly doesn’t care that the story gets reported somewhere. He wants it to be the dominant story and wants it on the very front page.
Clearly O’Reilly believes that he should control the news agenda for everyone in America and he should tell people what stories to run, where and how. That’s f***ing crazy. Seriously.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmwas it on the front page ABOVE the fold or not????
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Stop trying to move the goal posts. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that it wasn’t there at all, and it’s been proven that it was. You lost. Deal with it.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmOMG – ALL of you arguing about where the article appears in the paper are completely missing the point here. Wake up – PLEASE!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
and the DailyKOOKOOs fools are out in force. Ah my tools, we Democratic left wingers put out propaganda for you guys, and look how you swallow it, faster than Monica swallowed my….well you know what.
how easy it is to fool the masses of the left. how easy. We Democrats have the best communication staff in the world. YES!
We need you tools, we need you my mindless masses, we need you to stay in power.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmActually, isn’t the far bigger distortion regarding John Edwards?
John Edwards’ complaint is that “war on terror” is treated as bumper sticker politics. He has not argued it is “not that big of a deal” as Bildo puts ir. In fact, Edwards argued the opposite.
And because Edwards is correct, his views must be distorted on the O’Reilly Fakkktor. Because that’s what this jerk does for a living.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmCaption Contest:
And now a man with a tape recorder up his nose….
(French national anthem playing)
June 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThis story didn’t deserve to be on page 1. A handful of incompetents attempting an impoosible stunt is more like the bad plot of a B movie. Typical.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmwas it on the front page ABOVE the fold or not????
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Stop trying to move the goal posts. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that it wasn’t there at all, and it’s been proven that it was. You lost. Deal with it.
Comment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I don’t give a shit what O’Reilly says, I don’t like him, he is always putting me and my wife down.
The FACT is, my tool, that the New YOrk Times didn’t report the story above the fold.
I am not moving the goal post, my sheep, I am stating a fact.
that you don’t like it is something else. Deal with it.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
Comment by President Clinton
Point out or link the text where Dild O’Reilly even asserts that is even in the discussion or relevent. That is the weakest and most lame fall back deflection ever. What a dumba$$. This isn’t hannity chat idiot, there are actual critical thinkers here who see through your drivel.
How painful is your dying idealogy? It has been excruciating to us.
CHECKMATE!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmI cannot believe the as$hat who said it is not on the front page.
Look at the freakin picture!! Its on the front page!!
You asked me not to call you a Repuke troll.
But you are one, you LIE just like OReilly.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmJust answer the question, my Dumbcrat tool, can it be found on page 1 ABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
PrezCee, are you saying that O’Reilly’s claim was that the NYT did not have the story ABOVE THE FOLD on Page 1?
Or are you saying the BELOW THE FOLD on Page 1 doesn’t count as “Page 1″?
Which is it? Thanks.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmJust answer the question, my Dumbcrat tool, can it be found on page 1 ABOVE the fold?
Comment by President Clinton
valiantthehater,
Front page is front page. It make no difference WHERE an item is located.
Quit squirming.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmYou are right. I just think that a paper based in a city that had 9/11 should give more coverage of a thwarted terror plot that would have blown up an airport in that city.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
For one, New Yorkers aren’t manipulated by terrorism as much as conservatives think they should be. Talk to a few (I have). In 2004, the people of NYC and DC voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
Secondly, you’re missing the fact that the guy couldn’t have blown up the entire city with his plan.
I agree with the people who say that sensationalizing non-stories will only encourage the madmen who crave the attention to do such things, rather than focusing on the real threat to your health – the milk industry :D
By the way, I responded to you in the previous thread on Food costs…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmOReilly said it was on page 37.
So whether it was above the fold was NOT Oreillys point.
Stupid Repuke trolls, defending a serial liar and a sexual harasser.
You Repukes disgust me. You’re a bunch of lying a$$holes.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pmI don’t give a shit what O’Reilly says, I don’t like him, he is always putting me and my wife down.
The FACT is, my tool, that the New YOrk Times didn’t report the story above the fold.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Prez, if you don’t give a shit what O’Reilly saysd, why are you here on this thread, trying to poke holes in TP’s post?
Did anyone claim that the NYT reported the story above the fold? If not, who are you arguing with?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmStop trying to move the goal posts. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that it wasn’t there at all, and it’s been proven that it was. You lost. Deal with it.
Comment by unbelievable
He said the story was not on the front page, it was not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmRepuke troll, you DID move the goalposts.
O’Reilly said it was on page 37. It was on page 1.
Whether it was below the fold or not is immaterial.
You trolls just can’t stop lying and spinning, can you.
Repuke Trolls are inbred redneck idiots.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmOnce again and as usual, a fart in the whirlwind.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmABOVE the fold?
CHECKMATE.
Comment by President Clinton
Point out or link the text where Dild O’Reilly even asserts that is even in the discussion or relevent. That is the weakest and most lame fall back deflection ever. What a dumba$$. This isn’t hannity chat idiot, there are actual critical thinkers here who see through your drivel.
How painful is your dying idealogy? It has been excruciating to us.
CHECKMATE!
Comment by Heterodoxy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Another of my stupid sheeps.
My tool, as I told the other sheep, I could give a shit what O’Reilly said, I don’t like him. In fact, I had the IRS try to find a way to arrest him during the 1990s since he was always speaking against me and my wife.
go play your partisan games with the children in the playground. I think you will find Edwards and Kerry there.
The fact, my tool, remains that the New York times didn’t report this story above the fold. If you had an ounce of brain matter, and some education, you would know that stories above the fold in a newspaper are the ones that are considered the most newsworthy.
Please, don’t get an education, don’t acquire common sense, if you do, you will stop voting for us Democrats, ok? and you know how much we love power.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmSo, the Conservatives argument boils down to “the front page is not the front page.” This certainly explains why they think we’re “winning” the war in Iraq; or that Bush is a competent leader.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThese terrorists were a joke.
They had no money and no explosives.
No credible threat.
The FBI is prosecuting a thought crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pmFor one, New Yorkers aren’t manipulated by terrorism as much as conservatives think they should be. Talk to a few (I have). In 2004, the people of NYC and DC voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
Secondly, you’re missing the fact that the guy couldn’t have blown up the entire city with his plan.
I agree with the people who say that sensationalizing non-stories will only encourage the madmen who crave the attention to do such things, rather than focusing on the real threat to your health – the milk industry :D
By the way, I responded to you in the previous thread on Food costs…
Comment by unbelievable
People need to be aware that there are terrorists that are trying to re-create 9/11. Whether they would have been successful is open for debate, but they should be aware. Putting it on page 37 is irresponsible.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pm64. Check this out: http://www.madcowprod.com/05182007.html
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI don’t give a shit what O’Reilly says, I don’t like him, he is always putting me and my wife down.
The FACT is, my tool, that the New YOrk Times didn’t report the story above the fold.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Prez, if you don’t give a shit what O’Reilly saysd, why are you here on this thread, trying to poke holes in TP’s post?
Did anyone claim that the NYT reported the story above the fold? If not, who are you arguing with?
Comment by KRank — June 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
The point remains, my tool, that the New York Times didn’t consider newsworthy enough to report it above the fold.
c’mon son, you, my sheeps, have to be smarter than what you are showing here.
Sometimes I am truly amazed at how stupid, incompetent, ridiculous and dumb you my poor sheeps are.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm“There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases,†he said. “To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia,†he said.
The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.
Comment by JTitor — June 5, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
It deserves repeating
June 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmFront page is front page. It make no difference WHERE an item is located.
Quit squirming.
Comment by Zooey
OReilly said that the story was not on page one, it was not. A small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmSo, the Conservatives argument boils down to “the front page is not the front page.†This certainly explains why they think we’re “winning†the war in Iraq; or that Bush is a competent leader.
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch. — June 5, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Well, much like my argument of….depending what you think the meaning of the word “is” is. and how all of you, my sycophant followers, swallowed this.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIf there was a headline and a blurb on page 1, the story was on page 1.
You trolls never cease to amaze me with your lies and spin.
Anything to protect your beloved PervOreily.
FOX had to settle Loofah Felafel’s sexual harassment lawsuit for TEN MILLION DOLLARS.
You Repuke trolls are the bottom of the barrel.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmOkay real simple.
Had O’Liely and his staff pictured the entire front page, folded out, the article regarding the alleged plot would have been visible for all to see.
But they didn’t
then they claimed the story was delegated to page 37, while all other newspapers had it listed on page 1
But it was on page 1, just cleverly covered up.
Again, they lied (and Exley is denied)
I really don’t think it can get much more clear than that
June 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmBill O’reilly uses vibrators…on himself.
That means he’s a fag, and so are the Repuke trolls defending him.
I bet they get hardons thinking about having a dildo party with him.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmPutting it on page 37 is irresponsible. — Comment by timmy
Not as irresponsible as failing to take action in protecting our borders. But, if it’s all you’ve got to point at, I guess you take what you can get.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmSo obviously this wasn’t a news story, it was a Republican campaign piece. The White House is like the little boy who cried wolf and the newspapers are getting tired of being used as propaganda outlets. So they didn’t plaster it across the front page, maybe because the writer of the other article was promised that spot, and it’s all a vast liberal conspiracy depriving Repukes of their “money shot”.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmI am not moving the goal post, my sheep, I am stating a fact.
A fact that you don’t have the capacity or attention span to read anything else on teh front page which isn’t?
You think people will miss it otherwise?
LOL
that you don’t like it is something else. Deal with it.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Like has nothing to do with it. And we are dealing with you fear-mongering nutcases by pointing out your lies.
By the way – which President Clinton are you – Bill or Hillary?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm67. Comment by President Clinton — You jumped on that one a little too quick. Scares the shit out of you don’t it?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmTroll is so idiotic he can’t read the transcript.
NOWHERE does PervOreilly say “above the fold”
Typical inbred redneck Repuke troll.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmFront page is front page. It make no difference WHERE an item is located.
Quit squirming.
Comment by Zooey
WRONG! front page is NOT frong page in the newspaper business. I know this, I am the greatest President to have ever set foot on the Oval Office rug!
you are wrong, and I am right. Please go speak witha newspaper director, the lay out director, etc, etc and talk to them about the “above the fold” effect.
well, maybe not, if you become more educated you will stop voting Democrat, and we need all the Democrats that we can get, right?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmOReilly said that the story was not on page one, it was not. A small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
Comment by timmy
I apologize there was no picture, just the blurb that wasn’t even the lead into the story on page 37.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmHe said the story was not on the front page, it was not.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
How do you not see that it, quite clearly, IS on the Front page? Are you even looking at the front page to see it there? Do you have a hole in your cornea that prevents you from seeing what everyone else sees? I don’t get how you can say it isn’t there when it very obviously is.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pmIs someone going to explain to O’Lielly that the NY Times is a newspaper, not a person, it can’t “want” anything. I’m getting tired of his characterizing it as a person as if it has desires. It’s an object, not a human. And Bill Keller is a conservative, anyone who’s read his editorials knows that.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI am not moving the goal post, my sheep, I am stating a fact.
A fact that you don’t have the capacity or attention span to read anything else on teh front page which isn’t?
You think people will miss it otherwise?
LOL
that you don’t like it is something else. Deal with it.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Like has nothing to do with it. And we are dealing with you fear-mongering nutcases by pointing out your lies.
By the way – which President Clinton are you – Bill or Hillary?
Comment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
wow, you can’t be this stupid, can you? Please let me know, I would love more people like you to vote Democrat! yes, yes, yes!
please go speak with a newspaper, and ask them about the effect of having a story above the fold. Ask them what this means, my poorly educated sheep.
and which President am I. When did Hillary become PResident? have we had the 2008 Presidential election? really? when? education not your forte, eh?
that’s ok, your lack of education will keep on making you a loyal Dumbcrat, I love you girl, You put me in power and you brought back the do nothing Democratic Congress, whick now has lower approval ratings than our President.
thank you, our party, the Dumbcratic Party needs voters like you.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmOReilly said that the story was not on page one, it was not. A small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
Comment by timmy
So you admit it was there. Thanks.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmStill looking for your Safeway receipts, timmy?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmMaybe you put them with your Sunday NY Times…..
well, maybe not, if you become more educated you will stop voting Democrat, and we need all the Democrats that we can get, right?
Comment by President Clinton
Now you’re just twisting in the wind, PC. Ya got nothin’.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
Dream on, valiantthehater.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm67. Comment by President Clinton — You jumped on that one a little too quick. Scares the shit out of you don’t it?
Comment by JTitor — June 5, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
scare me? hell no!! I want more of the DailyKOOKOOs hysteria and lies. This will keep us Dumbcrats in power!! I love it, I adore it when we are able to manipulate tools like you. It keeps you voting for us the Dumbcrats.
thank you JTitor, keep on believing our lies and keep on letting us manipulate you, ok?
we need more tools like you, can you please recruit more idiots like you for our party?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmWell, O’Reilly seems to have left some aspects of the story out…
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Experts_cast_doubt_on_credibility_o_06042007.html
June 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
People need to be aware that there are terrorists that are trying to re-create 9/11.
But you Republicans keep saying that that won’t happen because Bush is doing such an excellent job fighting them over there so we don’t fight them here.
Which is it because you can’t have it both ways.
Whether they would have been successful is open for debate, but they should be aware.
Apparently, it isn’t open for debate. As an architect, I know a bit about ‘plumbing systems’. There are things called valves and backflow preventers. They do exactly what they sound like they do. Fill your toilet with gasoline and then set it on fire. You won’t blow up your house, just char your potty. Same basic principal to what this nut was attempting to do.
Putting it on page 37 is irresponsible.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
It was on the front page.
But if we want to talk about irresponsible media, then let’s talk about all the stories the do ignore… Like, for one of many examples, the way the government is trying to scare you into supporting their fear-mongering so you’ll blindly accept their war.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmwell, maybe not, if you become more educated you will stop voting Democrat, and we need all the Democrats that we can get, right?
Comment by President Clinton
Now you’re just twisting in the wind, PC. Ya got nothin’.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
Dream on, valiantthehater.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
You think that listening to our lies makes you a better educated person?
wow, all our tricks have worked on you. My mindless drone, my tool, my sheep, I love tools like you. When will you do a Monica on me? My wife has been out on the road campaigning and Monica won’t answer the phone, will you come over and use a cigar too?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmA small picture with a blurb was, the story was not.
Comment by timmy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
But timmy, we already established that no paper ever puts the entire story on the front page…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmSo you admit it was there. Thanks.
Comment by Zooey
The story was not there, which is what Oreilly said.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmComment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
but we haven’t had another 9/11, doesn’t this make our enemy Bush some what successfull on the war on terror (you know the bumper sticker)? oh shit, of course not, we need to hate Bush at all cause, what am I talking about, my sheep.
sorry, I apologize.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmIt was on the front page.
But if we want to talk about irresponsible media, then let’s talk about all the stories the do ignore… Like, for one of many examples, the way the government is trying to scare you into supporting their fear-mongering so you’ll blindly accept their war.
Comment by unbelievable
The story was not on the front page- a burried blurb was. The threat of terrorism is real, whether you want to admit it or not.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmEssentially what The Times did is treat the story like movie review — “See review of ‘Spider-Man 3′ in the “Arts & Leisure Section.â€â€˜ – Comment by Exley
If that was indeed his main point, why didn’t he just say so? Why does he find it impossible to give the full and honest depiction? Why can’t he say “I think it’s an outrage that this important headline was relegated to a below-the-fold reference to a story on page 37″?
He hated Clinton for being deceptive and “immoral”, but he is a twister of semantics like Clinton, and we know all about the falafel thing. The difference regarding the deception is that Clinton lied about personal affairs while Billdo lies about world affairs. The difference on the sex stuff is that Clinton had no trouble getting it while Billdo is just… ewwwwww.
Fair and balanced my a$$.
Shame on Exeley et al for hiding behind semantics. Why can’t you thugs face reality with some honesty and balance?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmand the DailyKOOKOOs fools are out in force. Ah my tools, we Democratic left wingers put out propaganda for you guys, and look how you swallow it, faster than Monica swallowed my….well you know what.
how easy it is to fool the masses of the left. how easy. We Democrats have the best communication staff in the world. YES!
We need you tools, we need you my mindless masses, we need you to stay in power.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Here it is in a nutshell. The troll is throwing it in your faces – I’m looking at YOU Zooey. Yet you eat it right up and come back for more – I expect more from the real regulars here. How disappointing.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmThe story was not there, which is what Oreilly said.
Comment by timmy
It is there.
O’Reilly lied.
You follow like a good little sheep.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:43 pmBut timmy, we already established that no paper ever puts the entire story on the front page…
Comment by unbelievable
Most stories on the front page begin with the actual story. This was not the first paragraph or a lead in.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmand which President am I. When did Hillary become PResident? have we had the 2008 Presidential election? really? when? education not your forte, eh?
It was a joke. Unclench a little already…
As for the rest of your nonsense, I’m an Independent liberal, not a Democrat.
thank you, our party, the Dumbcratic Party needs voters like you.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
At least I’m legally able to vote.
Thunder here is getting bad, I should go until it passes. Just hope we get some rain with it. The drought here is horrible…
June 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmCan somebody past a quote that shows OReilly was lying?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHere it is in a nutshell. The troll is throwing it in your faces – I’m looking at YOU Zooey. Yet you eat it right up and come back for more – I expect more from the real regulars here. How disappointing.
Comment by Namtillaku
Yeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmWas this story on the first page of the paper or not? Simple question with a simple answer. It was on the first page. The first page is page one. It’s not 1A it’s 1.
does the prez get that? can we gain a little focus here? Or are your slandering words too easy to spew forth from your spineless body.
It would be great to see facts and issues being discussed but PC here has a hard on with his fake persona. Delusional but comical.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThe New York Times gave this exactly the placement it deserved. Attempted Vandalism should not be an above-the-fold, front-page story.
And if these last two “terror plots” are really the best ideas that al-Qa’ida can come up with, I feel sorry for them. “The Base” is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Seriously, guys – here are some more effective terrorist attack ideas for you – feel free to use them:
1. Get like 200 jihadis to eat asparagus and have them all pee in the Hudson river, just upstream of Manhattan, at the same time. Talk about biological warfare!
2. Get lots of co-conspirators to go through airport security carrying dozens of harmless metal objects and taking them out one at a time during endlessly repeated trips through the metal detector. The cumulative effect of all the missed flights will bankrupt the airline industry!
3. Add an extra zero to speed limit signs nationwide, and bask in terrorism glory as Americans die in droves trying to drive 350 mph in a 35 mph zone.
4. Maple syrup balloons. Highway overpasses. Convertibles. You do the math.
5. Operation Hem and Haw – terrorize coffee shops nationwide by endlessly debating the merits of skim vs. soy milk with the barista during the morning rush hour. The collective undercaffeination will bring the U.S. economy to a grinding halt!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmand the DailyKOOKOOs fools are out in force. Ah my tools, we Democratic left wingers put out propaganda for you guys, and look how you swallow it, faster than Monica swallowed my….well you know what.
how easy it is to fool the masses of the left. how easy. We Democrats have the best communication staff in the world. YES!
We need you tools, we need you my mindless masses, we need you to stay in power.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Here it is in a nutshell. The troll is throwing it in your faces – I’m looking at YOU Zooey. Yet you eat it right up and come back for more – I expect more from the real regulars here. How disappointing.
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Namtillaku, why are you trying to diminish my audience? how dare you try to take away my audience! I am the greatest President to have ever stepped on the Oval Office rug, or so my sycophant followers tell me! and you dare try to get my audience to go away?!
I will go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you if you try this again. Ask the Chinese, it wasn’t pretty what I did to them!!!
get down on your knees and kiss the feet of the greatest President ever!!! all my other left wing tools do it.
how dare you?! how dare you?!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmYeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Grow up.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmWhy did this story even warrant front page coverage? Last folks who were trying to blow up an airport were bumbling incompetents. The guys who tried to attack the army base in New Jersey were laughable. We’re still not certain what Jose Padilla was up to.
Really, “The Keystone Kops rescued a Kitten!” isn’t front page news. It’s not intended as a slight against the Kops, it’s just not news. And you know after a few press releases of “feral witches’ familiars with huge teeth and claws baying away in mighty conifers,” I don’t blame the NYT for not disrupting actual journalism for yet another press release from the Kops.
CSM article on the event — online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p01s03-usju.html — wasn’t published until Monday and is still noticibly… short. But maybe they’re Godless commie scum, too — never can tell.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThis may be the funniest troll defense I have ever witnessed.
“Well, there was a blurb on the front page, but the story was on page 37!”
“Well, it was delegated to the lower half, so therefore it wasn’t technically on page 1″
“Really, I don’t care. O’Reilly just gets me so hot and bothered! Where’s my shower thingy?”
Reality check. Page one of the NY Times had a lead in article regarding the alleged plot.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmO’Liely and staff stated that every newspaper in NY had it on page 1, except the Times. False
end of story.
Now everyone play nice. I’m off!
#37
Why was it not the LEAD story on the front page?….for the second time.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm“…we already established that no paper ever puts the entire story on the front page.”
But, Unbelievable, when they do feel a story is worthy of front-page coverage, they DO put the lede paragraph and first few parapraphs of the story on the front page and then continue it further into the paper.
In this case, The Times appears not to have done that. It see,s they placed a “See Other Section”-type blurb on the front-page and placed the entire article, lede paragraph and all, outside the main section of the paper and in the “Metro” section.
In short, they placed none of the body of the article on the front-page. They simply referred readers to another section of the paper, as they would do with a movie review or “Lifestyle” section article.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmGood point, Toasterhead. O’REILLY is the party being IRRESPONSIBLE by blowing up a non-event into something to try to somehow show the Bush administration has some modicum of comptence.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmand which President am I. When did Hillary become PResident? have we had the 2008 Presidential election? really? when? education not your forte, eh?
It was a joke. Unclench a little already…
As for the rest of your nonsense, I’m an Independent liberal, not a Democrat.
thank you, our party, the Dumbcratic Party needs voters like you.
Comment by President Clinton — June 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
At least I’m legally able to vote.
Thunder here is getting bad, I should go until it passes. Just hope we get some rain with it. The drought here is horrible…
Comment by unbelievable — June 5, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Well, I am glad you realized that I am the only President Clinton, Hillary will be President she-man Rodham. She can’t trump my legacy and use my same last name.
How much I pray every night that she wins the election, all those fantacies that went unfulfill in the Oval Office! and all those national secrets that I need to sell to the world.
If there is a god, Hillary, will win and I will have the pleasure of using the White House as my personal playground. I did it while President, you know I’ll do it as First Lady….I mean First Fool, oopss sorry, I mean First Gentleman. (Monica thinks I am a pig though, and so does my wife and Jennifer, and Juanita) what is wrong with these women?
but the Chinese loved me, they even put up a plaque for me on their ICBMS thanking me for all the technology I gave them and wow, their women…..hot, hot, hot, hot…..they do things sexually that us Westerners can’t even imagine!! YES!!!!! man, I am getting hot under the pants just thinking about those Chinese ladies……grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Grow up.
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Exactly what is your problem?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pmYeah, thanks. I’m 100% responsible. Sue me.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Grow up.
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
if either one of you grew up, you both would be conservatives. So please, DON’T grow up, ok?
for our parties sake, for our liberal ideologies sake, don’t grow up.
Namtillaku, shut up already, you are doing great harm to our cause.
I am warning you, I will go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you if you don’t shut up already.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe more educated I become, the liberal I become.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
The more educated I become, the liberal I become.
Comment by Zooey
This gal is the female version of Homer Simpson.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm107. Comment by President Clinton — Yep. Cutting through troll shit is a little easy these days. I wish troll-Mart would send more qualified bloggers then the idiots they’re sending now. Not sure why you haven’t been fired? If I was your handler I’d be kicking your ass to the door.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#133. shut up, dumba$$.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWhy was it not the LEAD story on the front page?….for the second time.
Comment by Tracy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Because the lead story on the front page is reserved for items of national or international importance, not stories about attempted vandalism.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmBill, what the hell are you doing in here?
I have told you time and time again to stop abusing our masses!!!!!!!
DO YOU WANT ME ELECTED OR NOT?!
Women, please let us unite, we need to get the evil men out of these blogs, they only spew point of views that are biased toward men.
right or left, men are all evil. and yes, by the way, god is a woman.
Now Bill, stop embarrassing and shut up!
June 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pmComment by President Clinton — So, do you support George Bush?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pmWe would like to make clear that the poster who calls herself “President Clinton” is in fact a liberal who is amused at the sheep-like nature of other liberals. She is not a paid operative of our staff. Honest.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#126
Yes I think the NYT should ignore all of the these “bumbling incompetents” and just report on those plots that would have worked and potentially killed hundreds. A couple of people getting hurt or killed isn’t really worth their time.
This should be the new motto of the NYTimes: “We at the NYTimes aren’t concerned with the terrorist’s motive, just about the potential damage or death they could have caused.”
June 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmExactly what is your problem?
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
My problem is that you and the other regulars are actively helping the trolls here, by distracting people from the real issue at hand here. Arguing about where in the NYT the story resides is a red herring. The REAL issue is that these terror plots, real or not, are tools used to distract and create fear among us – away from issues that matter a LOT more. By endlessly debating this non-issue, you have become what you despise here – a troll. Give it a rest.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“President Clinton”: you are SOOO very clever, posting as if you’re the former President. That is HILARIOUS. And so clever. L-O-S-E-R.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmWe’re really serious. The poster who calls herself “President Clinton” is not promoting the conservative cause by denigrating liberal arguments (even though that’s our favorite tactic, too).
We have been accused of planting her on this forum. The people who make such accusations are emboldening the terrorists and are the enemies of freedom.
Please further the cause of freedom by engaging “President Hillary Clinton” in debate. America thanks you.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#141. “All the news that’s fit to print.” Sort of sums it up. They printed the news, moron. It was just a minor story. When Bush fails to stop two jets from hitting the World Trade Center and a third jet from hitting the Pentagon it makes the front page.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pmBy endlessly debating this non-issue, you have become what you despise here – a troll. Give it a rest.
Comment by Namtillaku
Bingo do not feed the trolls
June 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pmRemember “under the bridge”? I miss it when they say that.
By endlessly debating this non-issue, you have become what you despise here – a troll. Give it a rest.
Comment by Namtillaku
I will give it a rest. Thanks.
Now spread the word to the others.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“President Clintonâ€: you are SOOO very clever, posting as if you’re the former President. That is HILARIOUS. And so clever. L-O-S-E-R.
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch. — June 5, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
How dare you call the smartest President ever to step foot in the Oval Office rug, a Loser?!!!
that’s it, I have been too nice, I will go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you.
I have your cordinates and you are a goner…….hahahahaha!!!
yes, I love playing with the little military codes that I use to have. It makes me feel powerful and strong. Women love it.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pmOh, yes these guys were vandals. Give us a break! These guys weren’t trying to vandalize anything. Vandals usually want their handy work to be seen. So tell us how blowing up a fuel pipe line fits the MO of a vandal.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6614666&nav=0RZF
June 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#115 gorn by any other name,
“If that was indeed his main point, why didn’t he just say so? Why does he find it impossible to give the full and honest depiction?”
I agree with you. He would have been much more accurate and his argument more persuasive if he had done as you write. He was a little “cute” with the facts.
But so did TP in suggesting that The Times placed the article on the front-page. It did not.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmHeterodoxy,
“Can the story be found on Page one? Is the story on Page one Exley?â€
No. A blurb — not even the lede paragraph — referring readers to another section of the paper is found below the fold on page one. The article does not appear until page 37, outside of the paper’s main section, in the “Metro†section.
Comment by Exley
Eh, I hate to do it but: I agree with Exley. In fact, I get the Sunday NYT and was struck by the lack of an actual front page article on the plot. The story actually appears on the page dedicated to stories about New York City, although there is a blurb (as Exley notes) on the front page.
However, this simply demonstrates that nothing happened, other than a few arrests. The wingnuts got hysterical and terrified, as usual, but it was clear from interviews in the article that, even if they’d succeeded in getting explosives and getting them planted, very little would have happened and that the whole plot was ill-planned and over wrought.
Bill O should have been more accurate, but in essence he’s right: no front page article.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#129
Don’t worry Exley one of these plots will become the lead story on the front page of the NY Times when it’s a sucessful attack and people die.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmBy endlessly debating this non-issue, you have become what you despise here – a troll. Give it a rest.
Comment by Namtillaku
I will give it a rest. Thanks.
Now spread the word to the others.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
NO!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I need the attention, i crave the attention, don’t stop Zooey, I’ll go crazy, I’ll go nuts!
Ask Monica, I gave her up once she stop caring about me and once she stopped paying attention.
Namiboy is going to pay for this….how dare he? he is an infidel…..Allah Akbhar!!! for Allah, I will have the infidel pay for what he has done.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhat terrer plot?
A group of Bozos who thought their federal informant was sent by Allah?
Ond moron who worked at the airport some time ago, who wouldn’t have had a clue about getting past security?
This is just another sad sack bunch of pizza delivery moronis again.
Call us if you actually find someone who IS a threat, wouldja?
June 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThis should be the new motto of the NYTimes: “We at the NYTimes aren’t concerned with the terrorist’s motive, just about the potential damage or death they could have caused.â€
Comment by Tracy — June 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Sounds about right. What difference does it make if their motive was money or religious ideology or protest? Crime is crime, and the Times should certainly cover the fact that a potential criminal act was stopped. But I don’t see why the religion of the suspects should prioritize the story. Did the NYT give above-the-fold front-page coverage to the anti-globalization riots in Seattle?
June 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm#115 gorn by any other name,
“If that was indeed his main point, why didn’t he just say so? Why does he find it impossible to give the full and honest depiction?â€
I agree with you. He would have been much more accurate and his argument more persuasive if he had done as you write. He was a little “cute†with the facts.
But so did TP in suggesting that The Times placed the article on the front-page. It did not.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
but being “cute” with the facts is what we Dumbcrats do best. We love playing with the facts, omitting things and adding one or two things here and there to make our party sound better than the Republican party.
and if we don’t succeed, well we go Chinese Embassy in Serbia on you.
Like Shrum, he has dare step the line and attack us Dumbcrats. If you aren’t a loyal Dumbcrat and if you dare tell our dirty little secrets like Shrum has….well we will go Bin Laden on you.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pm*spreads the word – again*
It matters not where the article about this ridiculous ‘terror plot’ can be found in the NYT, what matters is the timing of these plots, and how they affect us, causing us to flock to the republicans for safety. Safety from what? Pizza boys?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
June 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pmAttention, TPers: Even though the poster who calls herself “President Clinton” uses standard right-wing put-downs such as “Dumbcrats” (I know — we can’t think of anything better. We’ve tried…) be advised that she is NOT a right-wing operative. She is a legitimate viewpoint in the “wide spectrum of liberal thought”.
Honest.
You guys want to be so damned free-thinking, deal with the fruits of that free-thinking. We on the right will stick to narrow adherence to ideology, thank you.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:19 pm*spreads the word – again*
It matters not where the article about this ridiculous ‘terror plot’ can be found in the NYT, what matters is the timing of these plots, and how they affect us, causing us to flock to the republicans for safety. Safety from what? Pizza boys?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEF75DVWqrI
Comment by Namtillaku — June 5, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
yes my DailyKOOSKOOs boy, it is all a lie, a conspiracy, a black helicopter conspiracy theory.
Look into my eyes, let me hypnotize you, oh wait, the far left wing has done that for me already.
they pull your strings like the puppet you are. we sure need fools like you to stay in power.
9/11 was not real, it was all a movie that you watched and CNN, MSNBC, Foxnews, ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the other major news outlets where in on it.
don’t believe anything anyone tells you, ask Mel Gibson, Patrick Stewart almost killed him for not believing the black helicopter conspiracy theories.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThe story is on page 37, the front page of the Metro section. For those of you who don’t see the physical paper, it’s NOT the main section, rather it is tucked inside.
There’s some wishful thinking/semantics here from people who are blinded by their desire to see Think Progress and The NYT as always right, and Bill O’Reilly as always wrong.
To say the story is “featured” on the front page because there’s a teeny picture and a couple of sentences about it is incorrect. It’s not far off from saying that every story is on the front page, because the index is there.
This item is a stretch. Really, the focus here should have been “NY Times for once gives a ‘terror plot’ its proper stature by not putting everything someone labels ‘terrorism’ on the front page.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm“O’Reilly faslely claims” enough said!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmyes my DailyKOOSKOOs boy, it is all a lie, a conspiracy, a black helicopter conspiracy theory.
I’m not talking about conspiracies here – I ridicule conspiracy theorists, just as you purport to. I believe the plot itself was real, however impotent it would have been.
But those that you brown shirts lick the boots of, are using these events to scare the populace. Scared people are a lot more maleable.
You’re off your talking point ‘Clinton’, acting like the little republican troll that you are, you should have used your RNC moniker for this response.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmComment by Namtillaku — The placement of a story equates somehow to this administration leaving the borders wide open. This administration wanting to give amnesty to millions of illegal’s while supposedly fighting terrorism. Let see what we got for 8.5 trillion dollar debt? A couple of pizza delivery guys with the IQ of an 8 year old being controlled by a drug addict working for the FBI, guiding under the guise of being sent by Allah, to blow up something that they no longer had access too. Never made outward attempts to get explosives or had any money to do so. Funny that this came out the same day as poll showed Bush’s approval ratings falling to it’s lowest level of any president since Carter during the Iran Hostage crises? Hmmm….
June 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmTo say the story is “featured†on the front page because there’s a teeny picture and a couple of sentences about it is incorrect. It’s not far off from saying that every story is on the front page, because the index is there.
Comment by eddytompkins — June 5, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Wow, eddy, you must do yoga because you can really strrrrrrrretch there.
Can you point out who said the story was “featured” on the front page?
The story was on the front page. O’Reilly said it was not. O’Reilly said, “Now I’m not making this up… This is The Factor and this is the fact. On page one, The New York Times instead of the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.”
In fact, he more accurately shold have said, “On page one of the New York Times along with the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.” Because both stories were noted on page one.
It’s really proving more pointless than usual to argue with people on thsi story. If you’re intent on claiming that a story on page One is NOT on page one because it’s not “featured” on Page One or because it’s “not above the fold” on Page One, then there’s no amount of logic or evidence that will dissuade you from the claim. They ony thing I can conclude is that it must have some emotional value for you to believe that.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThe REAL issue is that these terror plots, real or not, are tools used to distract and create fear among us – away from issues that matter a LOT more.
These are just two sides to the same exact thing. The REAL issue is that these tools are used to distract and create fear among us.
In that sentence, the word “tool” applies to both marginal “terror plots” and right wing mainstream media propagandists like Bill O’Reilly.
These two are inseparable and I fail to see the important distinction, but if you must make a point of it, keep in mind that O’Reilly’s meta-misinformation is the specific topic of this thread, not the underlying misinformation. It’s always a good idea to stick to the topic at hand.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmComment by President Clinton — You call yourself a conservative, but you fully support this neo-conservative administration. Neo-conservatives have no resemblence to conservative ideals. Ron Paul is the only sane voice in the Republican party and is a true conservative.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pm“I agree with you. He would have been much more accurate and his argument more persuasive if he had done as you write. He was a little “cute†with the facts.” – exely
Thank you for this level of honesty.
“But so did TP in suggesting that The Times placed the article on the front-page. It did not.”
Your statement is false. TP did not say that the article was placed on the front page. TP said there was a headline on the front page:
I hope you will keep with your previous honest statement and admit that your other assertion is false.
Bottom line, if O’Reilly was capable of full, honest disclosure, we would not be having this discussion. He is an intentionally deceptive, sensationalist, hateful fearmonger, and conservatives with supposed ethical and moral values should condemn him or at least not defend him.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmIt’s really proving more pointless than usual to argue with people on thsi story. If you’re intent on claiming that a story on page One is NOT on page one because it’s not “featured†on Page One or because it’s “not above the fold†on Page One, then there’s no amount of logic or evidence that will dissuade you from the claim. They ony thing I can conclude is that it must have some emotional value for you to believe that.
Comment by KRank
There was no story on the front page, KRank. There was a reference to the story, which appeared on an interior page (funny, I thought it was page 20), where it was treated as a local story. This is very much standard procedure in the NYT, as well as other newspapers that offer something very like a table of contents.
I get the Sunday Times. I saw the front page, looked for the article, and eventually found the reference to the actual article. Do not tell me the story appeared on the front page, because it bloody well did not. A brief description of an article does not, in any definition, constitute “the story”.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmWarning: Rant ahead.
This has got to be the most inane thread I have ever read here on TP.
1. We need a “fast forward button” to skip past Pee Cee and his provocative BS. Honestly, PeeCee, can’t you do better than this? Reading your posts and looking for something of value, is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
2. I agree with Namtillaku that responding to this troll nonsense is foolish. Sadly, I honestly could not find anything worth contributing to this ridiculous topic on O’lielie that hasn’t been beaten to death.
3. The only “sin” regarding trolls is getting sucked in emotionally. And there are too many folks here who do get all emotionally involved in the wrong way (with the troll.) This is what trolls live for. Nothing ruins a thread’s productiveness faster than an emotional food fight. Death threats, wishing harm and sickness on others is not only wrong, it means the troll wins.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmBesides, watching 5 year olds hurl names at each other over and over and over is really boring. Find a fun way to play, rather than an angry retort. Be creative, and cynical instead of hateful. Make the audience (us readers) laugh with you, not cringe in embarrassment.
A brief description of an article does not, in any definition, constitute “the storyâ€.
Comment by gummitch — June 5, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
But it DOES constitute “coverage”. O’Reilly said it did not appear on the front page. He said it did not appear until page 37. That is a clear lie. The lie was enhanced by concealing the paper “below the fold” where the headline resided.
How many items were noted on the front page? How many actual articles in the entire Sunday NYT?
It WAS on Page One. The whole story? No. But the Times saw fit to draw attention to what was essentially a local crime story on Page One.
The issue is not whether the Times gave appropriate coverage to the story. The issue is whether O’Reilly created a false impression in the minds of his viewers with his characterization of the paper’s handling of the story. Did he lie? I would say, yes, he did. You, I guess would say he didn’t. And there we are.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThe issue is not whether the Times gave appropriate coverage to the story. The issue is whether O’Reilly created a false impression in the minds of his viewers with his characterization of the paper’s handling of the story. Did he lie? I would say, yes, he did. You, I guess would say he didn’t. And there we are.
Comment by KRank
Clearly, O’Reilly distorted the truth, on that we do agree. I’m not actually agreeing with him, just disagreeing with you. Which is confusing.
The thrust of O’Reilly’s story is a lie, and he’s obviously unwilling to examine the importance of the actual story (and the terrorist “plot”). I also happen to think the story ended up right where it should be, and that putting it on the front page plays right into the hands of the Republican agenda, which is to scare the crap out of everyone so they vote for a “strong man.”
I’m just touchy about the issue of what constitutes the “story”, in journalistic terms, and what I perceive(d) as pussy-footing around by TP and yourself (among others). What should be said is that the story was interesting, but not really front page material.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pmAt least O’Reilly used facisim and Bush Administration in the same sentence…
June 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pmHe lies about being part of the Human Race also. In 18 months his flabby brain will get caught in his flabby neck/chin, and he’ll choke to death. Maybe. He, Limburger and Handsonity are the worst thing to happen to Radio since electricity…..
June 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pmWhy do you guys respond to the idiots? Like PresC, Timmy, Patti1″, Exlax and the rest can you not see that they are willfully ignorant for a reason, their world is caving in and they hate it….but of course everyone hates them in real life too.
It was on page 1 BO is lieing again, as usual…and BO has always been irrelevant.
Hating the repukian mafia daily
June 5th, 2007 at 3:37 pmHey O’Reilly! Can I interest you in a piping hot cup of STFU?!
June 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pmOh, the Times wins both ways…. I see, when terrorists attack Bill-O says: “I told you we need to fight these anti-American, anti-West terrorists”. When terrorists do not attack Bill-O says: “I told you our great president was keeping us safe”. Why is the worst person in the world spreading his gospel in the media 24/7 ?
June 5th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWell, more Republican propoganda.
One would think that news of Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female speaker of the U.S. House of Reps in the history of our country would deserve front page news, but our local Republican ass-kissing newspaper put in on 3A.
Among other news on that front page, we were treated to a story about a man and woman who gave their mentally ill daughter drugs to stunt her growth, because it would be easier to take care of her as she aged. They didn’t even live in our state.
Oh….and a huge headline announcing a Republican being chosen as Speaker of the House in the TN state legislature, with 1.5-inch-tall letters in the headline.
The next news-making action of the Dems in Congress, the completion of the first 100 hours of agenda that Nancy promised if elected, got stuck on page 13A.
And then there was the article telling us about Rep. David Davis voting against all but one of the 6 bills during the first 100 hours of Dem control of the House of Reps. Problem is, the author of the article only reported on 5 of the bills. I e-mailed him to ask why, and he said that “there wasn’t enough room in the paper to address all 6 bills” so he left it out.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pmEvery time Bill O’Reilly opens his mouth, he reminds me of Adolf Hitler. Bill O’Reilly is no different from his beloved comrades Adolf Hitler, Josef Goebbels and Benito Mussolini. Bill O’Reilly is just another corporate propagandist masquerading as a political analyst. If Bill O’Reilly wants to be famous on FOX News, then he should wear a Brown Shirt, grow a short moustache, and deliver his propaganda hysterically in a German accent.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pmNico – What size font did the NYT use for that below the fold “HEADLINE”?
Six??????
I guess the importance of the story did not impress the NYT toooo much…
June 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pmLike the inclination to look and move to the left (physically not always politically), I believe humans naturally flip a paper they just picked up over and view below the fold first then return to view above. I know I do and believe I saw some research on this tendency at some point but I can not attest to it nor site the source. If time permits I will look into it. Any layout/marketing people out there that know? Besides the whole thing is stupid as it has already be pointed out that front page is the front page unles Mr. Clinton has a different definition of the meaning of the words “front page”
June 5th, 2007 at 6:35 pmOops movement to the right. Sorry I am left handed and free thinking
June 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWho’s surprised about the New York Times? It’s not like they ever endorse a Republican for President…..
June 5th, 2007 at 8:07 pmAll these “Terror Plots” have a similar thread. All the participants couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel and we should be alarmed?
1. Guy’s with automatic rifles against Ft. Dix?
2. A shoe bomb and the guy brings matches that he can’t light?
3. A blowtorch to destroy a bridge?
4. Two chemicals, when mixed are; highly unstable, ineffective, and dangerous to the user only.
5. Blow up fuel tanks when they; “lacked the explosives and financial backing to carry out the attack.”
6. The Sears Tower plotters who didn’t know where the fucking building was!
Honestly, the only thing more ridiculous than the “terrorists” are the people that believe this shit. Appearing on page 37 is too far forward for the story. Only Guliani gets a kick out of these “terror” alerts. So, why wasn’t the color alert upgraded? Remember those, yea, because elections aren’t up yet. Fox should be placed on the “enemies list.”
June 5th, 2007 at 8:43 pmwhat difference does it make, the mouth breathers who watch o’lielly are too stupid to read a regular newspaper, nevermind the new york times.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pmA few clarifications as my earlier had many issues due to lack of focus. 1) Change Humans to Americans. 2) Look left hence the placement of brand names on the left of our grocery shelves. 3) Move to the right hence increased rental cost of right side near entry mall space. 4) Reduced emphasis on the quaint but outdated due to 24/7 news access of the importance of the “headline” has led to the increase in focus on the substories.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:09 pm#156
“Crime is crime, and the Times should certainly cover the fact that a potential criminal act was stopped”
That’s too simplistic. Many crimes go unreported for obvious reasons. This was a terrorist plot. The fact that so many here feel it wasn’t front page material clearly shows their lack of concern for a real problem. By letting people know that these plots are real will keep people vigilant and not pre-9/11 complacent which I think many here are content with and want to return to.
“Did the NYT give above-the-fold front-page coverage to the anti-globalization riots in Seattle?”
Oh I doubt it! That would tarnish their image.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:20 pm#155
“Call us if you actually find someone who IS a threat, wouldja?”
Would that be before or after their attack is sucessful?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:22 pmJFK Airport Plot Has All The Hallmarks Of Staged Terror
Near-retarded “ringleader”, paid government provocateur mirrors legion of previous cases
by Paul Joseph Watson
An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport has all the hallmarks of being another staged terror alert, having never advanced beyond a rudimentary planning stage while being prodded and provocateured by a paid government informant.
In every single major terror sting we have researched in the west since 9/11, not one single plot has been absent the ingredient of a government provocateur, save the cases that were outright manufactured by imaginative government propagandists in alliance with the corporate media.
In this case, the provocateur was “An informant with a criminal history including drug trafficking and racketeering agreed to work with investigators on the case, in exchange for payments and a reduced sentence,” according to the New York Times .
Officials have refused to say how they became aware of the plot in the first place, but in every previous case of this nature we have found that it is the government agent provocateur who radicalizes the group and formulates the plot. The cover story is that the group is infiltrated by the informant having already planned the attack but as more details emerge, inevitably the plot always reveals itself as an artificial creation on behalf of the intelligence services.
What’s the motive? The war on terror is the most politically exploited concept since the cold war. The propaganda boon from hoodwinking Americans into thinking they are constantly under threat from terrorists is unsurpassed. On the very day that this alleged plot was announced, Rudy Giuliani was already using it to inflate his presidential campaign .
In addition, the new head of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, told a reporter this past weekend that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.
Once again we learn that “the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives,” and yet the event is reported by a jingoistic and frothing media as if an imminent attack on the scale of 9/11 has been averted.
But as always, the devil is in the details, because even if the group had managed to acquire the financing and explosives to enact the plot, it would have been unsuccessful, due to “safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network.”
The sum of the group’s planning for the alleged attack amounts to nothing more than visiting Google Maps and printing off photographs.
It appears that part of the agenda in hyping the alleged plot is to undermine Hugo Chavez, since the ringleader, Russell Defreitas, has links to Jamaat al-Muslimeen, a Muslim group headed up by Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, and in turn Bakr has been affiliated with Chavez.
As Kurt Nimmo writes , Neo-Con websites are already exploiting these tenuous links to demonize Hugo Chavez, who – whatever you think of his domestic policies – has been a constant thorn in the side of the Globalists and was subject to an attempted CIA coup in 2002.
Defreitas is described by one law enforcement official as “a sad sack†and “not a Grade A terrorist,†who would have been incapable of carrying out any attack. A friend described him as “not smart enough” to have carried out the attack.
In several other cases, we see a pattern where near-retarded individuals are used as patsies for terror plots orchestrated by intelligence agencies because they are easily manipulated and cannot defend themselves after the fact.
From out of nowhere, Defreitas goes from embracing American culture and enjoying jazz music to dressing in traditional Muslim garb and referring to himself as Mohammed while planning a devastating attack due to his supposed hatred of the west.
The basic tenet that the terror threat has been overhyped and magnified a thousand-fold for political propaganda is proven alone by documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that show only 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security were terrorism related , despite the fact that the Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that it is the primary focus of the DHS.
As more details leak out, there seems little doubt that the JFK airport plot will dissipate into nothing more than another hyped terror alert – coddled, molded, and directed by the government, before being unleashed on an increasingly skeptical American public in another vain attempt to prop up the flagging legitimacy of the “war on terror”.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pmWhat do you expect from a bush lap dog.The guy is as phonie as a
June 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm4 dollar bill.
Bill O’Reilly is the biggest traitor on TV. He gets a dose of his own medicine and whines like a baby. What a coward.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pmso exactly how small can the headline be and still be considered front page news? a blurb below the fold isn’t headlines, even in NY…get real.
oreilly nailed it…prevented plots and foiled terrorists goes against the NYT mantra.
the NYT buried their collective heads in the sand and buried a real story to suit their politics, not their sense of journalism.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pmSuzanne Daley, the Times national editor, agrees with O’Reilly and explains the story placement decision on a NYT.com column:
June 5th, 2007 at 11:12 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04asktheeditors.html
Bill sucks!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:51 pmHaha, all of you liberals can’t stand all of this and I love it. You guys have to be idiots to not see that there’s a problem with the way things were published that day. A terrorist plot was foiled in New York. Terrorist activity in other countries has always been front page news. And to all of you guys that think it was covered on the front page…it was put right on top of a strike in Somalia. You guys are trying to tell me that a woman laying bricks and a few musical instruments are more important than the threat of what could have happened in Queens?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmUmm, O’Reilly is right about the NY times not placing it on the front page. check out this link from the NY Times website.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04asktheeditors.html
Its the National Editor answering questions about why they put the article on page 37 instead of the front page.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:27 amI agree with the NYTimes editor, Ms. Suzanne Daley, that this was a very lame and nascent plot, not front page worthy. She writes:
“Here’s the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.
In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.
And Mr. Godfrey, as to dinosaur-ism: we had the story up on nytimes.com before 1 p.m. on Saturday. The official press conference on the subject had not even started. “
June 6th, 2007 at 1:12 amsee http://photo2text.com/
June 6th, 2007 at 1:28 amRON PAUL 2008. Real conservative. Real constitutionalist. Really against Occupation of foreign lands. Really against spreading democracy through the barrell of a gun. Really america’s last chance. Support america, Supporty Ronpaul.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:28 amMIKE GRAVEL 2008, finally a candidate with a working brain
http://www.gravel2008.us/
June 6th, 2007 at 1:35 amDoes think progress think a book starts on the back cover with the blurb? Are they really that stupid? A story starts when a story starts. A book doesn’t start until you open it, and this article didn’t start until you turn to page 37.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:06 amBillO really just wants to blow his own brains out but he’s too much of a pussy.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:26 amBill O’Reilly is a shit. We even know that down in Oz. He is globally recognised as one of the foremost pieces of shit in a very strong field.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:06 amHa ha, a puke called Jim above me is defending the shit. Ha ha. All stories which are featured on the front page of any newspaper anywhere in the world, is continued further back.
We know you kook don’t read many newspapers anyway. If you did you might be marginally better informed.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:08 amBill O’lielly=CIA assett. Google it.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:41 amFox News is constantly distorting the news. I fear what will happen if Rupert Murdoch is allowed to buy the Wall Street Journal.
Unfortunately, millions of Americans get their daily news from Fox. Check out this in depth look at what really goes on behind the scenes at Fox.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:51 amFox News: A policy of misinformation”
It depends on what your definition of first page is. Since the paper is folded and sold in a folded format really the story is on the last page – and purposefully printed upside down.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:30 amI don’t know guys I’m going with O’Rielly and the side of stupidity on this one.
O’Reilly was discussing the fact that the NYT did not put the story of the JFK incident on the front page, which is in fact true. There was a small blurb about the story (which they do for many articles), but the actual story was buried deep in the section. Just because they listed the article in what is basically a table of contents does not mean they gave the issue traditional “front page” status.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:31 amAl Franken was the first to call his bluff, years ago, along with Ann Coulter. Yet people think Al Franken is a nut. Hah.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:46 amHmmmmm…..they give the JFK attempt a small little corner that can barely be seen but a big picture of Indians laying bricks and you morons call him a liar. The point he was making is that the story is not on the front page because technicly it isn’t. All you have is a small pointer after you weed through all of the B.S. This just goes to show how many people actualy listened to the story he was presenting and would rather quote some comedian trying to play politician.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:30 amThinkProgress, please post an “update” to clarify this. The national editor of the Times has admitted and explained the reasoning for NOT covering the story on the front page. It becomes more difficult to challenge O’Reilly’s future lies when you don’t admit when you are at least partially wrong. Please, ThinkProgress, post an update.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:42 amHe’s right, they pretty much buried this terror scare #37 story – and good for them!!!
June 6th, 2007 at 9:43 amWell, I don’t like O’ Reilly in the first place, however I try to be fair with the newscasters. So saying that, I don’t like the way Bill O’ Reilly portrayed this story. I mean, it seems like he deliberately hid the bottom part of the story, to prove a point, to prove a point about Bush, him and the NYT. If only he had said that the story was given less importance than it should have, may be I wouldn’t have hated him (this time) as much. But he completely skewed the truth! He wasn’t completely lying, but he was definitely hiding the truth. People who don’t get the NYT at home, obviously are going to think that NYT didn’t give any importance to the news at all, which is all wrong!!!
June 6th, 2007 at 9:56 amYou don’t have to like or dislike the guy to point out that the NYT is biased. They do this same kind of thing with Child predators and Judges that give them light sentences. Face it. We live in a era where journalism is all about getting ahead and less about reporting the truth. The point I think he(O’ Reilly) was making is that the NYT consistently downplays the war on terror and thinks its a joke.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:25 amMost of the comments here are ridiculous.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:48 amThe story was not on page 1.
A mention of the story, like an entry in a Table of Contents was there.
IS ANYONE ACTUALLY STILL TAKING THIS CLOWN SERIOUSLY?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pmO’reilly is a hateful, stupid man. His nightly show serves to keep people scared and in the dark. People like my grandmother ,who have no clue of the amount lies this man and others on Fox tell. I do believe there is a special place in hell for this man. I know that O’reilly has been completely marginalized by people who have half a brain, but it is not them that scare me it’s the ones who can’t see beyond the lies and propaganda. I’m more scared of an idiot who doesn’t know how to use a gun than the people who do.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:09 pmThe New York Times admits and then defends their decision to bury the story on page A30. If the Times can admit they buried the story, why can’t you left wing loons admit it? Nah, I guess thats asking too much from a leftist. (The little blip on the front page does not constitute ‘covering’ a story.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04asktheeditors.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
June 6th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWho’s Bill O’Reily?
June 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThis story deserved to be buried because it was pure BS from start to finish. These men were framed with the help of an informant who was trying to keep himself out of prison on a drug charge. That US Attorney should be fired or worse for her statement that the attacks would have caused “unfathomable damage”. The conspirators had no explosives, no money, no links to any terror organization, and no workable plan. And, in the unlikely event they did blow up a fuel tank, it have only caused a fire, with no damage to the airport or the surrounding neighborhood:
June 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usattacksairportskepticism;_ylt=AoHRPX72sMOSE0CyVImslUQDW7oF
So Gary, how do you know this was a frame up? Can you prove it or are you getting your information from Al Fraken and the Huffington post? This is the problem with people, is they ignore the facts and just make up what they want. The point of the whole story was that the NYT doesn’t think terrorism is a big deal along with many other issues period. Like it or not the MYT is biased and when its pointed out they call names rather than debate. Fact is the story was not on the cover it was just a pointer. Sure maybe he left that out but it’s not the big picture.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04asktheeditors.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is the NY Times Editor (and self-proclaimed terrorism expert) explaining why they ran the story on page A30. She admits in the editorial that “the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.”
Comon, people, lets not argue over semantics. Clearly, by Journalistic standards, placing a tiny little intro to the story below the fold is not considered “Running a story on the front page.”
O’Reilly did not lie. This is a witch hunt and you know it. He simply omitted what, by Journalism Industry standards, was not deemed important. They were both wrong, so quit the inquisition, quit your bitching, and worry more about Hillary’s criminal background.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pmWell, since this story is completely BOGUS who cares? The “leader” of the “plot” is borderline retarded, they had no money, and since the informant was nothing more than a druggie sent to provacateur as a condition of a plea bargain, this whole things reeks of a setup.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pmNot to mention that every expert has determined that even IF this plot had been carried out, it would have resulted in a fire at MOST. This idea that somehow it would set off a chain reaction and “destroy JFK” is simply more propaganda to scare the type of idiots who watch Fox and actually believe that it’s “fair and balanced”.
Problem: I am holding that issue of the New York Times in my hand right now and it is not mentioned once on the front page. Either there are two different issues floating around or something else is wrong here.
The section (next to the man playing the violin) that is pointed out on the website Jay posted contains the following headlines:
-U.S. Forces Strike in Somalia-
-Same-Sex Conjugal Visits-
-Golf’s Mr. Unpredictable-
-The Tony Award Competition-
-Inside Google’s Brain-
-Presidential Shortcomings-
Perhaps there is some truth to this. Is the national edition different? This could have been the version O’Reilly had. I can’t scan this entire front page for you at the moment so you’ll have to take my word. I am holding the June 3 issue of the New York Times with the New India/Old Industry article at the top and I am assuring you, with all honesty, there is no mention of the JFK plot anywhere. Not below the fold, not anywhere. Explain that.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmNow we know why O’Reilly is consistently “THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD.” Go Olbermann!
June 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI will gladly troll bash people that are trying to say that NYT didnt put the story on their front page are borderline retarded. Have you ever picked up a newspaper in your lives? 99.9% of page 1 newspaper articles start with a small portion of the article on the front page and then it is continued on a later page, many times even the Main Headline story is continued on another page. Those that still try to defend Bill are truly pathetic people that cant accept the fact that this piece of crap is lying to them.
Oh and I am a republican
June 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmOk time to back peddle a bit while the entire story was not on the front page, It is my opinion that having a sidebar teaser for a story with what looks like about 2 paragraphs of the story is just as good as the whole story being on the first page since it gives it just as much exposure, everyone who picked up the paper still saw the story because of the sidebar on the front page.
and Bill still lied based on this quote
“Now I’m not making this up. You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact. On page one, The New York Times instead of the JFK terror arrests we saw some Indian people with bricks.”
we did in fact see the jfk terror arrests on page one even though it was in the sidebar we nonetheless saw it on page 1
June 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pmBill O´Reilly want to know why the NYT isn´t freaking out the people. Just ask him why, not ONCE, has he mentioned Presidential Directive 51 and what it means for the American people. Never mind that the first I heard about the JFK plot was on the NYT digital edition. Actually, I want to know why the NYT isn´t talking about PD 51???????????
June 6th, 2007 at 11:28 pmMy friend (Chris, post 224) insists that it was not in his issue. Can anyone show the actual issue in more detail?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:57 pmOdorman and Joe Scarface keep insulting Bill, who never mentions their largely unwatched scrofulous gibberish on his own show. He does mention NBC, a garbage toxic-waste dump of Brian Williams suck-a-doodle-do that is plunging in the ratings.
ABC and Charlie Gibson make Carter-groupie Brian appear to be a catamite for the Dhimmicrats.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:14 amRush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, JFK Terror Plot, Think Progress
IT WAS ON PAGE A30
Lefty Attack Against Talkers Over JFK Plot Coverage Backfires
Who are the real “big fat” liars?
After their assertion was refuted even by the New York Times itself, a nasty attack by liberal bloggers against conservative talk show hosts has backfired.
After Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and other hosts lambasted the Sunday New York Times for burying news of the JFK terror plot bust, Think Progress, News Hounds and other lefties accused them of lying.
By claiming the story actually was covered on page one and even asserting that O’Reilly intentionally misled viewers by showing only the top part of the page on camera, these smear sites were truly pulling a fast one.
While Limbaugh said JFK terrorism plot coverage was found on page A30, O’Reilly says he found it on A37.
From the O’Reilly Factor:
Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don’t be alarmed. According to John Edwards and The New York Times, this is no big deal.
In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at a Fuddrucker’s restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.
Now apparently The Times isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11. On page one of Sunday’s New York Times was this story: some poor people in India making bricks.
And from Limbaugh’s transcript:
RUSH: This terror plot. As I say, I found this on page 30 of the New York Times. They didn’t think it was a big deal at all. Here’s a report from CBS in New York: “Feds Say Terrorist Plot Poorly Planned — In the latest terrorist threat to New York City, the alleged terrorists are all middle-aged men, the oldest 63-year-old Guyanese immigrant Russell Defreitas.” It’s not Russell. He calls himself “Mohammed.” See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. One of these guys is a citizen.
These are homegrown, and whether or not their plot made any sense and whether or not it worked — and it probably wouldn’t have worked. The problem with blowing up jet fuel or gasoline is, jet fuel is essentially kerosene, and it burns in a very narrow range of fuel and air mixtures.
[excerpted]
Everybody’s downplaying this as, “Well, this wouldn’t have worked,” and, ‘These guys are just a bunch of idiots.” But that’s not the point of this. The point of this is, here we have the report. How many people now are going to be even more nervous than they are about flying?
From there, Think Progress accused them of lying, singling out O’Reilly here:
Bill O’Reilly calls the New York Times “quasi-socialistic†and has placed the newspaper on his enemies list. Last night, he devoted an entire segment of his show to attacking the Times for not covering the arrests made in an alleged JFK airport terrorist plot on the front page.
“In Sunday’s Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on — ready — page 37, right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker’s restaurant,†O’Reilly said. He claimed the Times “isn’t real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11.â€
[excerpted]
One problem: the New York Times did cover the JFK terror plot on the front page of its Sunday edition. You wouldn’t know it from watching O’Reilly, who chose to show only the top fold of the front page during his broadcast. “Now I’m not making this up,†he told his viewers. “You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact.†But O’Reilly is lying.
The real problem is that O’Reilly isn’t lying and neither was Rush. In the “evidence” provided by Think Progress, they point to a tiny, one paragraph teaser found in the right sidebar.
Not in a million years would that qualify as front page coverage!
In fact, two Think Progress commenters were quick to bust them:
Please don’t call me a troll or a Republican for this but, he is right – the article is not headlined on the front page. There’s a small reference to the story on the interior page (metro section).
I receive the print version of the Times. I remember thinking, that’s good – they’ve put this on page 37 instead of on the front page, because, if previous terror scares are any indication, within 48 hours this will have been downgraded from “the end of the world†to “cheesyâ€.
Think Progress can do better, and 99 percent of the time does.
Comment by eddy tompkins — June 5, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
I’m not a fan of O’Really or Faux, but from the picture given us of below the fold I cannot make out much of a headline or whether the story is “covered†on the front page.
Comment by leftcoast — June 5, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
From there, it gets worse: even the New York Times admits it buried the story! But it does have an excuse, though it seems weak. This is from a reader Q & A with National Editor Suzanne Daley:
The J.F.K. Airport Bomb Plot
Q. I live in California and was astounded yesterday to look at my print edition of The Times for the article on the J.F.K. bomb plot and to find it back on page A30!
What has happened with the news judgment of your colleagues? A terrorist plot that could have badly damaged the entire economy of the nation, including those of us who live in the Bay Area, and it’s relegated to the level of bridge club reports. You might wish to suggest to your editors that your readers do not live in a vacuum, that we do have alternative sources for news and they only make The Times look foolish with such ineptitude. No wonder your circulation and advertising are falling; your editors are turning a once-honored newspaper into a dinosaur in the electronic age.
– Richard Godfrey, San Francisco
Q. Could you offer some insights on how The Times decided to play the story about the alleged J.F.K. terror plot? It was noticeably different than the way the other leading national papers played it; your placement (Metro) and coverage have been more skeptical. I’m particularly curious about why it was not considered a national story, but rather, a local one. Thanks.
– Barbara, Manhattan
A. Here’s the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.
In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.
Will O’Reilly, Limbaugh and the other hosts who made this point get an apology from the smear websites? Don’t hold your breath.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:07 amAs some people pointed out, since the editors of the NYT themselves admitted it wasn’t on the front page, then obviously, they don’t consider that teaser blurb to be a front page story.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:53 amSome additional info here:
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/06/all-news-thats-fit-to-bury.html
I’m not trying to be abusive but what type of intellect and/or values do people have who watch this man for their news and information? There has never been anyone in the history of television that gets caught in making up the easily documented lies that he tells, on an almost daily basis.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pmI don’t blame the media for the state of journalistic ethics. I blame the Americans who voluntarily support and condone people like him getting rich off of providing vile and, often, bigoted lies and unsupported innuendo.
Eventually he’ll deny the Holocaust; that will be his undoing!
June 7th, 2007 at 11:56 pmNONSENSE. this wasn’t a story, but a tease on the side leading the reader to a lesser page. You’re lying.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pmSo is this site going to issue an apology to fox? NYT admits not covering the story on page 1:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/opinion/10hoyt.html?ei=5090&en=59a8cf6dae1c72d0&ex=1339128000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
This time, Times reporters were hearing skepticism from sources in the government, Gottlieb said, and he became even more concerned that the newspaper not “buy into the hype on an issue where stories have frequently been overstated.â€
Once he decided that leading the paper with the story would be overplay, Gottlieb said that the choice between small play on the front page or major play on the Metro front was less significant to him, a decision that could go either way. He talked to Geddes twice more, and Geddes finally made the call.
Seems to me, that thinkprogress is lying to its readers.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pmO’Reilly’s got a point here, actually. Everywhere else it was the top story on the front page. Here, in New York’s backyard, it was refrenced on the cover, but the actual story was on page 37! That’s the whole point.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pmRead the nytimes link that Lorien posted. It states that the editors discussed all day long where to put it. Finally, they decided on page 37, because “nothing really happened, there are terror plots that don’t go through all the time.”
How many times are the placement of page 37 stories discussed all day long? The NYT’s excuse is a transparent lie. If it weren’t important, why discuss the placement all day long?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:48 pm