I just heard something rather disturbing about the NYTs

[kat21]

I was having dinner with a friend last night. She has a son who is a free-lance writer living in NY. He had written articles for the NYTs on a free-lance basis for some time now. About 2 months ago they asked him about his affiliation with the AIDs activist group ACT UP! back in the 80s. He admitted he had been involved with the organization. Since then they have refused to publish any stories that he's submitted. Unfortunately, he cannot take legal action because he's not an employee.

Is that insane or what? I thought the NYTs was a very liberal paper.

[chicagiana]

1. Just wait till you find out about the Washington Times ....

.... ;-)

[el_gato]

2. NYT is an elitist propaganda rag

they have a phoney liberal facade but in reality they are only
interested in creating consent for the policies of the elitist establishment.

Check out Judith Miller's role in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

[Vincardog]

3. Not any more. They support more H1B workers with houndreds of Thousands

or American IT workers out of work. MEDIA WHORES

[SteppingRazor]

4. Not surprising

Many of the major papers have very strict rules about affiliation with ANY political organization. They don't want the paper or its reporters to be perceived as having any sort of bias whatsoever. And yes, the NYT is quite a liberal paper, if one judges a paper by its op-ed page.

[demodonkey]

5. Yikes I went to an ACT UP meeting back in the 80s...

Wildest version of "democracy at work" I ever saw... anyone who walked in could and did participate as a full member... it was orderly and was really quite an example of a "mass meeting" as per Robert's Rules. I didn't get deeply involved, but it was a fascinating group.

Well, now I guess I can't ever write for NYT... not that I was probably going to, lol!
;-)

[AP]

6. Want to get depressed about the NYT, read this book:

 The Record of the Paper: Fifty Years of the New York Times on US Foreign Policy
 Author: Friel, Howard
 Author: Falk, Richard
 Publisher: Verso
 Published: 11/01/2004
 ISBN: 1844670198

Description

In this meticulously researched study--the first part of a two-volume work--Howard Friel and Richard Falk demonstrate how the newspaper of record in the United States has consistently, over the last 50 years, misreported the facts related to the wars waged by the United States. From Vietnam in the 1960s to Nicaragua in the 1980s and Iraq today, the authors accuse the New York Times of serial distortions. They claim that such coverage now threatens not only world legal order but constitutional democracy in the United States. Falk and Friel show that, despite numerous US threats to invade Iraq, and despite the fact that an invasion of one country by another implicates fundamental aspects of the UN Charter and international law, the New York Times editorial page never mentioned the words "UN Charter" or "international law" in any of its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 20, 2003. The authors also show that the editorial page supported the Bush administration's WMD claims against Iraq, and that its magazine, op-ed and news pages performed just as poorly. In conclusion the authors suggest an alternative editorial policy of "strict scrutiny" that incorporates the UN Charter and the US Constitution in the Times coverage of the use and threat of force by the United States and the protection of civil and human rights at home and abroad.

[kat21]

7. Thanks to everyone for your comments -

this really opened my eyes.

[jdj]

8. I don't know about long-term, however

what has been linked here since the election from the NYT has really turned my stomach.