Enemies Are Reading…
The New York Times.* It’s the paper preferred by more terrorists.
See original WWII posters
(Click image to enlarge)
Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror
The NY Times reports:
Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said. (emphasis ours)
“Secret?” Not anymore. “Hidden?” Not anymore.
Michelle Malkin declares:
Dammit. These people don’t know when to stop. The anonymous leak-addicted NYTimes tag team of Eric Lichtblau and James Risen is at it again. Their front-page, splashy piece posted on the web tonight and top-linked on Drudge…
Malkin has the full story:
NY Times Blabbermouths Strike Again!
UPDATE:
The Los Angeles Times piles on and flaps its mouth, too…The story is the blabbermouth media’s refusal to act responsibly and learn when to shut up…
Patterico is cancelling his subscription…
Ditto for Marc Danziger…
Unfortunately, we anticipate that both media outlets are probably thrilled by the publicity. And maybe they’ll actually gain a few readers. Today’s MSM motto: Who cares about national security when you got newspapers to sell?
UPDATE: (7/10) Join the protest against NYT today!
Michelle Malkin: “Newspaper of Wreckage, Continued”
UPDATE: (6/24)
Austin Bay: The Axis of Abuse: NYT and The D.C. Leakers
Squiggler: “How To Stop The NY Times…”
Flopping Aces: “The Self-Absorbed Media”
Dr. Sanity: “The Narcisstic Underground”
RELATED: via TimesWatch.org
Times Cripples Another Terrorist Surveillance Program
Technorati Tags: Homeland Security, NSA, Terrorism, NY Times
June 24th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Surely you are not advocating state intervention in business.
June 24th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Debate Swirls Around Terror Bank Data
A secret Bush administration program to track people suspected of bankrolling terrorism drew protest
June 24th, 2006 at 10:39 am
No. But what we’re advocating is responsibility — something the news media is shrugging off these days.
June 24th, 2006 at 11:34 am
National Security Be Damned! Says NY And LA Times — UPDATED
(Scroll down for updates.) Despite appeals from the Bush Administration as well as several current and former government officials — both Democrat and Republican — the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times decided to break a story today
June 24th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
But they are free to do what they wish they are free to be irresponsible in your words. If we are looking for a paper to be responsible where does it stop. For instance a paper publishing that the interest rises are coming for instance would result in a dent in the housing sector. Denting the economy it could be said that it would be responsible not to publish but they do.
Also it wasn’t very responsible for the Danish cartoons to be published but they were. Freedom is freedom whether we agree on what they say or not.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
If we are looking for a paper to be responsible where does it stop?
Simon, let’s ponder that question for a little while longer. Yes, you may be playing the role of agent provocateur, but with all due respect to St. Guinness, you’re just not making sense. The slippery slope argument doesn’t work.
Keeping the same question, replace the word “paper” with “government” — or let’s try “media” or “citizens” or “police” or “parent”. If you apply the same logic to any of those terms (as some would argue for), what you resolve to is the state of choas.
Or do you mean to suggest that, as a civilized society, we can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, common sense, and doing what’s best for the greater good? Liberty requires discipline. Freedom unbridled, without laws or responsibility, is anarchy.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
with all due respect to St. Guinness,
Do you think referances to alcohol makes your arguement any way stronger. I have been nothing but polite but I find the insinuation that I am drunk highly insulting.
And if you think freedom of the press should be limited well I don’t know how you could support this.
June 24th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Golly gee, Simon. What happened to our cordial exchanges and witty repartee? The playful reference to St. Guinness was — as before — merely a nod to your Irish good standing. No disrespect intended.
In regards to “freedom of the press,” we support it. Just like “freedom of religion.”* And we’ve also recognized the NY Times’ negative bias and double-standard when it comes to that.
But we’re not talking about freedom of the press to offend people and their religious beliefs. The subject issue is about whether its reasonable and responsible to jeapordize national security and put lives at risk.
Can we drink to that?
June 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Oh Simon, Simon… don’t you know? Freedom only extends to republiCONs. And polite repartee? Not here.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:40 am
The tone of that NYT article is discusting. The NYT guy defends themselves with, “We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”
That’s it? This military intelligence program is a matter of public interest, therefore its okay to report? And this use of “the administration” is peculiar.
It quotes a bunch of people saying how this plan was very successful in tracking down terrorist ties after 9/11. They even report on all the feds who asked them not to publish this. Then the article jumps into the details.
June 25th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
An Army of Photoshoppers…
From California Conservative:
Many more to see here and here.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Canceling subscriptions is missing the point. When are we going to move toward the companies that pay for advertising? Support them if they dont advertise and dont support them if they do.
The NYT and the LAT are not going to worry too much about subscriptions, its the advertising dollars that make it or break it. Make your wallet choices there and the Times’ will change.
livingthedream
turn the key and smile.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Cancelling subscriptions is exactly the point. You see, advertising costs are based upon readership, and if readership is low, advertising costs have to be reduced to induce companies to stay with the paper, and if readership falls too low, advertisers will find a) another print medium or b) another medium altogether to advertise in.
I quit reading our local rag years ago just for that reason, and encourage others to do the same. It is just now (rumor has it) that the local rag is figuring out that pandering to the moonbats is costing them, and apparently are trying to figure out how to get the 30% of their readership back that they’ve lost due to extremist moonbat positions they take.
Unfortunately, I live in a solid blue town (we even had an avowed communist on the city council for a while, and no one in years has been a councillor that had even a centrist philosophy), so it’s easier to be a socialist paper than just a NEWSPAPER THAT REPORTS THE NEWS. (What a novel idea, that.)