tagged w/ NYT
-
(something that truly shows the sad state of journalism in the United States and the world for that matter ...G.)
The New York Times Goes to the Dogs
Canine-centric stories skyrocket during early months of Abramson’s reign
By Ron Howell
There’s really no other way to say this: The New York Times is going to the dogs.
Dogs have been appearing in the paper 45 percent more frequently since Jill Abramson took over as executive editor last November.
How do I know this? I recently did some research in the LexisNexis database, where I found that the number of Times articles containing three or more words with “dog” as the root (such as “dog,” “dogs,” and “doggie”) increased from 230 in a four-month span from November 1, 2010 though February 28, 2011 to 337 from November 1, 2011 though February 28, 2012 (the first four months of Abramson’s time as boss).
I started smelling something funny several months ago, when Abramson was celebrating her appointment as the first female chief at The Times. I listened to her on WNYC, speaking in that singularly nasal New York-cum-Harvard accent. And what was the topic? Puppies!
Abramson’s book, you see, is not about politics or poverty or even the worrisome condition of modern journalism. No, it’s about the dogs she has loved in her adult life, the dogs she has spent the large part of her off-hours admiring and contemplating. It’s titled The Puppy Diaries, and it recounts every experience she’s had with her late pet, Buddy, and her current one, Scout, and every insight she’s ever had about them. Before Scout came into the picture she felt Buddy was “my one perfect relationship in life.”
Let me say now that I love dogs. One of the saddest days of my life was in August of 1997, when I held my 14-year-old German Shepherd, Reina, as a veterinarian injected her ailing body into its final rest.
This topic of loving dogs is a very personal one. But I believe we, as New Yorkers, have crossed over to the far side in our obsession with dogs. And I worry that this canine obsession is creeping intrusively into the pages of The Times, one of our few remaining daily newspapers.
I say this as one who becomes enraged when I see important local stories lazily reported or ignored, especially stories from the Central Brooklyn communities that I love. Quite bluntly, in black and in white progressive communities of the city, The Times has a reputation of being a paper of the gentry, arguably a good thing when it comes to vocbaulary expansion, but a questionable attribute when it comes to covering people on the racial or social margins. Last year I ranted ( in The Amsterdam News, in Voices That Must be Heard, in Our Times Press, and on my blog BrooklynRon) about how consistently The Times either ignored or misrepresented Bedford Stuyvesant (the historically black Brooklyn neighborhood in which I was raised and that I love so much).
The paper’s “Crime Scene” column had previously given prominence to Bed-Stuy on two notable occasions, drawing attention to white crime victims, with a one-sidedness that struck me as a throwback to the 1950s, when city papers did not give a hoot if a black person was murdered.
In the very same two-block area where “Crime Scene” obsessively covered the robbery and beatings of a group of young men (all but one of them white), I knew of older pillars of the community, both black men, who had also been beaten and robbed. The crimes against them were greeted with a 1950s-style silence.
As I vented about this galling disparity to a friend of mine, Gayle Williams (a 1986 graduate of Columbia’s journalism school who has worked over two decades at newspapers through the East Coast), she told me she had been thinking about this subject for quite a while herself. And then she said something that gave me pause, but sounded more and more reasonable as I pondered it. “Maybe they [The Times] just ought to give up local reporting and let the bloggers and the community newspapers who really care about those communities do the job.”
This is the backdrop when I read Times articles like one on Feb. 26, headlined “A New Breed of Ring Bearers Trot Down the Aisle.” In it I learned about a furry wedding guest named Major and the barking and growling that “served as background music” to the wedding vows.
A few days before that article, on Feb. 23, there was another one headlined “Play Dead, Act Coy, Roll Over and Upstage the Humans,” which informed us that while “dog stars do not compare with human actors … they can give camera-hogging performances.”
A 45 percent jump in precious newspaper space given to dogs is significant. But check this out. Fifteen years ago, before Abramson had any clout at The Times, there were only 167 references to dogs during a four-month time-frame that I checked. That indicates an increase of more than 100 percent in the attention given to dogs between then and now!
One defense of the Times’s dog proclivities might be that there are more dogs in the city (and nation) now, and that more coverage is warranted. Hmm. Cute. But I don’t buy it.(a distraction tactic if you ask me.)(something that truly shows the sad state of journalism in the United States and the... more
-
-
A silver lining emerges at the end of the tunnel for Goldman Sachs after Greg Smith lambasted it in last week's op-ed. Here's a new op-ed from a GS manager who no one else would employ but who, at GS, is right at home.A silver lining emerges at the end of the tunnel for Goldman Sachs after Greg Smith... more
-
-
For those who read the 1lovejoy blog, you are well aware of this blog’s disdain for Rupert Murdoch questionable journalistic practices; his business dealings and neo conservative politics. It’s not surprising that Mr. Murdoch’s companies are in a bit of a pickle. He has weathered scandal before but somehow this phone-hacking scandal is different. It shows how Mr. Murdoch and his hand-picked lieutenants created a culture of pay-offs and intimidation. It seemed to be inevitable that one of his news media outlets would take things too far in order to get a story.For those who read the 1lovejoy blog, you are well aware of this blog’s disdain... more
-
-
Now, after a computer analysis of three decades of hit songs, Dr. DeWall and other psychologists report finding what they were looking for: a statistically significant trend toward narcissism and hostility in popular music. As they hypothesized, the words “I” and “me” appear more frequently along with anger-related words, while there’s been a corresponding decline in “we” and “us” and the expression of positive emotions.
“Late adolescents and college students love themselves more today than ever before,” Dr. DeWall, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky, says. His study covered song lyrics from 1980 to 2007 and controlled for genre to prevent the results from being skewed by the growing popularity of, say, rap and hip-hop.
Defining the personality of a generation with song lyrics may seem a bit of a reach, but Dr. DeWall points to research done by his co-authors that showed people of the same age scoring higher in measures of narcissism on some personality tests. The extent and meaning of this trend have been hotly debated by psychologists, some of whom question the tests’ usefulness and say that young people today aren’t any more self-centered than those of earlier generations. The new study of song lyrics certainly won’t end the debate, but it does offer another way to gauge self-absorption: the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The researchers find that hit songs in the 1980s were more likely to emphasize happy togetherness, like the racial harmony sought by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder in “Ebony and Ivory” and the group exuberance promoted by Kool & the Gang: “Let’s all celebrate and have a good time.” Diana Ross and Lionel Richie sang of “two hearts that beat as one,” and John Lennon’s “(Just Like) Starting Over” emphasized the preciousness of “our life together.”
Today’s songs, according to the researchers’ linguistic analysis, are more likely be about one very special person: the singer. “I’m bringing sexy back,” Justin Timberlake proclaimed in 2006. The year before, Beyoncé exulted in how hot she looked while dancing — “It’s blazin’, you watch me in amazement.” And Fergie, who boasted about her “humps” while singing with the Black Eyed Peas, subsequently released a solo album in which she told her lover that she needed quality time alone: “It’s personal, myself and I.”
Two of Dr. DeWall’s co-authors, W. Keith Campbell and Jean M. Twenge, published a book in 2009 titled “The Narcissism Epidemic," which argued that narcissism is increasingly prevalent among young people — and possibly middle-aged people, too, although it’s hard for anyone to know because most of the available data comes from college students.
For several decades, students have filled out a questionnaire called the Narcissism Personality Inventory, in which they’ve had to choose between two statements like “I try not to be a show-off” and “I will usually show off if I get the chance.” The level of narcissism measured by these questionnaires has been rising since the early 1980s, according to an analysis of campus data by Dr. Twenge and Dr. Campbell.
That trend has been questioned by other researchers who published fresh data from additional students. But in the latest round of the debate, the critics’ data has been reanalyzed by Dr. Twenge, who says that it actually supports her argument. In a meta-analysis published last year in Social Psychological and Personality Science, Dr. Twenge and Joshua D. Foster looked at data from nearly 50,000 students — including the new data from critics — and concluded that narcissism has increased significantly in the past three decades.
During this period, there have also been reports of higher levels of loneliness and depression — which may be no coincidence, according to the authors of the song-lyrics study. These researchers, who include Richard S. Pond of the University of Kentucky, note that narcissism has been linked to heightened anger and problems maintaining relationships. Their song-lyrics analysis shows a decline in words related to social connections and positive emotions (like “love” or “sweet”) and an increase in words related to anger and antisocial behavior (like “hate” or “kill”). more on this at link -figgNow, after a computer analysis of three decades of hit songs, Dr. DeWall and other... more
-
-
The N.Y.Time’s declared war on the Huffington Post shows no sign of dissipating, and as ever the new-look NYT Magazine is at the front lines of the attack. Andrew Goldman’s interview with Arianna Huffington is quite astonishing, but first it’s worth looking at other news of the week.(it all ties together in some twisted sick way keep reading and hold on to your seat ladies and fellas-figg)
On Monday evening, HuffPo’s Shahien Nasiripour got his hands on a photocopied internal document from within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Marked “confidential for AG Miller,” it shows that the CFPB is deeply involved in putting together the AGs’ settlement with mortgage servicers. Nasiripour wrote:
Perhaps most important to some lawmakers in Washington, the mere existence of the report suggests a much deeper link between the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, led by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, and the 50 state attorneys general who are leading the nationwide probe into the five firms’ improper foreclosure practices, a development sure to anger Republicans in Congress and a banking industry intent on diminishing the fledgling CFPB’s legitimacy by questioning its authority to act before it’s officially launched in July.
Earlier this month, Warren told the House Financial Services Committee, under intense questioning, that her agency has provided limited assistance to the various state and federal agencies involved in the industry probes. At one point, she was asked whether she made any recommendations regarding proposed penalties. She replied that her agency has only provided “advice.”
The Republicans in Congress reacted exactly as Nasiripour said they would. Spencer Bachus immediately posted Nasiripour’s document on his website (the exact same photocopy, not any other version), and came out fighting:
Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus and Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairman Shelley Moore Capito are asking Elizabeth Warren, the Obama Administration official charged with setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, if she wants to clarify or correct her recent testimony regarding the Bureau’s role in the ongoing mortgage servicing settlement negotiations. Recent reports indicate that the CFPB’s role in these negotiations has been more extensive than Professor Warren suggested during her testimony before the Subcommittee earlier this month.
The Huffington Post’s document caused so much of a stir in Washington that even the NYT felt compelled to report on the developments:
Last week, Ms. Warren told the committee that she provided “advice” to the Treasury secretary and others about a possible settlement but was not involved in the negotiations. State attorneys general and federal officials are discussing a settlement with mortgage service companies in response to questionable foreclosure practices.
On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Bachus released a seven-page document titled “Perspectives on Settlement Alternatives in Mortgage Servicing,” which, in a letter to Ms. Warren, he said demonstrated that she had a larger role than she had indicated to the committee.
Nowhere in the NYT story, which was written by Edward Wyatt, was there any indication that the document had been ferreted out by an assiduous reporter at the Huffington Post. And of course his link to the document was to house.gov rather than anything with HuffPo branding. In hindsight, Nasiripour would probably have been smart to put some kind of HuffPo watermark on the front page of the document, because both Wyatt and Bachus (with his vague reference to “recent reports”) seemed determined to ensure that Nasiripour got no credit for finding it at all.
And so to Goldman’s interview, which includes this jaw-dropping exchange:
I think that hiring a slew of traditional journalists seems counter to the model that made buying you appealing to AOL.
We already had 148 journalists on payroll at The Huffington Post. I don’t know how you can say that.
I look at your writers much less than I find myself clicking on stuff that’s been aggregated or the more salacious, boob-related posts.
Nasiripour’s scoop was hugely popular on the HuffPo site: wonky news and grainy photocopies can still generate 1,173 Facebook shares, 1,627 comments, and 2,760 Facebook likes. Total pageviews were surely much higher than on the NYT piece in which Wyatt aggregated Nasiripour’s information without crediting him. But Andrew Goldman doesn’t seem to be drawn to that stuff: instead he “finds himself” clicking on boobs. Which surely says more about Andrew Goldman than it does about the Huffington Post.
What’s certain is that Goldman is taking his cues from his boss. Here’s Keller:
The queen of aggregation is, of course, Arianna Huffington, who has discovered that if you take celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos, posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications, array them on your Web site and add a left-wing soundtrack, millions of people will come.
Goldman, before he starts talking about aggregation and boobs, asks the same question — “aren’t you left-wing” — four different times before finally letting it drop.(more at link and source enclosures) Via Columbia Journal ReviewThe N.Y.Time’s declared war on the Huffington Post shows no sign of dissipating,... more
-
-
“Machines will definitely be able to observe us and understand us better,” said Hartmut Neven, a computer scientist and vision expert at Google. “Where that leads is uncertain.”
Google has been both at the forefront of the technology’s development and a source of the anxiety surrounding it. Its Street View service, which lets Internet users zoom in from above on a particular location, faced privacy complaints. Google will blur out people’s homes at their request.
Google has also introduced an application called Goggles, which allows people to take a picture with a smartphone and search the Internet for matching images. The company’s executives decided to exclude a facial-recognition feature, which they feared might be used to find personal information on people who did not know that they were being photographed.
Despite such qualms, computer vision is moving into the mainstream. With this technological evolution, scientists predict, people will increasingly be surrounded by machines that can not only see but also reason about what they are seeing, in their own limited way.
The future of law enforcement, national security and military operations will most likely rely on observant machines. A few months ago, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon’s research arm, awarded the first round of grants in a five-year research program called the Mind’s Eye. Its goal is to develop machines that can recognize, analyze and communicate what they see. Mounted on small robots or drones, these smart machines could replace human scouts. “These things, in a sense, could be team members,” said James Donlon, the program’s manager.
Millions of people now use products that show the progress that has been made in computer vision. In the last two years, the major online photo-sharing services — Picasa by Google, Windows Live Photo Gallery by Microsoft, Flickr by Yahoo and iPhoto by Apple — have all started using face recognition. A user puts a name to a face, and the service finds matches in other photographs. It is a popular tool for finding and organizing pictures.
more at link...
Technology is not our friend anymore, it is the enemy.
We will have to destroy these things...the sooner the better.“Machines will definitely be able to observe us and understand us better,”... more
-
-
On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan.
The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.
Drawn from giants like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the bankers form a powerful committee that helps oversee trading in derivatives, instruments which, like insurance, are used to hedge risk.
In theory, this group exists to safeguard the integrity of the multitrillion-dollar market. In practice, it also defends the dominance of the big banks.
The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.
more at link....
They rule more than derivatives, but if speak out about it, you're called "crazy" by the media propagandists they control. The Creature from Jeckyll Island rules your life!On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street... more
-
-
Overall, America's major media fails the test. It's biased, shameless, and irresponsible with "everything to sell and nothing to tell" as a noted US media critic once said. It delivers a daily diet of "managed news" (propaganda), infotainment, and "junk food news," a worthless mix, treating people like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about what matters most. No wonder greater numbers opt out, consuming less broadcast "news" and print media, the kind no one should waste time or money on.
No paper has more clout than The New York Times. Media critic Norman Solomon once called its front page "the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA" - in fact, anywhere because its reports circulate globally.
In his April 1998 article titled, "All the News Fit to Print (Part I): Structure and Background of the New York Times," Edward Herman called The Times "an establishment newspaper," serving wealth and power interests, a record dating from 1896 when the Ochs-Sulzberger family took control. Its agenda "persist(s) to this day" as two earlier articles explained, accessed through the following links here and here.
For many decades The Times has had the lead role distorting, censoring, and suppressing truth, a shameful record:
- supporting the powerful;
- backing corporate interests;
- endorsing imperial wars;
- ducking major issues like government and corporate lawlessness and corruption, sham elections, democracy for the select few alone, an unprecedented wealth gap, and eroding civil liberties and social benefits; and
- supporting Pentagon and CIA efforts to topple elected governments, assassinate independent leaders, prop up friendly dictators, secretly fund and train paramilitary death squads, practice sophisticated forms of torture, and menace democratic freedoms at home and abroad.
Journalism, New York Times Style
more at link...
The NYT is a muck-racking, yellow journalist, propaganda spewing rag...just like the rest of the MSM (main-stream media) and a majority of so-called alternative news as well. Sure, there's a few diamonds in the rough and real go-getters out there, but from the top down, they're all owned by Rothschilds and Rockefellers and a handful of other off-shore corporate globalists, who sold out this country a long time ago. They're a bunch of Council of Foreign Relations scum promoting WWIII, terror, austerity, eugenics, global warming, global currency and global governance.Overall, America's major media fails the test. It's biased, shameless, and... more
-
-
FORT BENNING, Ga. — War would be a lot safer, the Army says, if only more of it were fought by robots.
And while smart machines are already very much a part of modern warfare, the Army and its contractors are eager to add more. New robots — none of them particularly human-looking — are being designed to handle a broader range of tasks, from picking off snipers to serving as indefatigable night sentries.
more at link...
You're gonna die b/c of your ignorance.FORT BENNING, Ga. — War would be a lot safer, the Army says, if only more of it... more
-
-
WASHINGTON — A secret history of the United States government’s Nazi-hunting operation concludes that American intelligence officials created a “safe haven” in the United States for Nazis and their collaborators after World War II, and it details decades of clashes, often hidden, with other nations over war criminals here and abroad.
The 600-page report, which the Justice Department has tried to keep secret for four years, provides new evidence about more than two dozen of the most notorious Nazi cases of the last three decades.
Perhaps the report’s most damning disclosures come in assessing the Central Intelligence Agency’s involvement with Nazi émigrés. Scholars and previous government reports had acknowledged the C.I.A.’s use of Nazis for postwar intelligence purposes. But this report goes further in documenting the level of American complicity and deception in such operations.
The Justice Department report, describing what it calls “the government’s collaboration with persecutors,” says that O.S.I investigators learned that some of the Nazis “were indeed knowingly granted entry” to the United States, even though government officials were aware of their pasts. “America, which prided itself on being a safe haven for the persecuted, became — in some small measure — a safe haven for persecutors as well,” it said.
The Justice Department has resisted making the report public since 2006. Under the threat of a lawsuit, it turned over a heavily redacted version last month to a private research group, the National Security Archive, but even then many of the most legally and diplomatically sensitive portions were omitted. A complete version was obtained by The New York Times.
The Justice Department itself sometimes concealed what American officials knew about Nazis in this country, the report found.
more at link...
I wonder if the complete version mentions the Bush family, their real name (Sherf), Operation Paperclip or the Vatican?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
Also, check out Antony Sutton's Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. I'll post it below.WASHINGTON — A secret history of the United States government’s... more
-
-
WASHINGTON — They had lived for more than a decade in American cities and suburbs from Seattle to New York, where they seemed to be ordinary couples working ordinary jobs, chatting to the neighbors about gardening and schools, apologizing for noisy teenagers.
But on Monday, federal prosecutors accused 11 people of being part of a Russian espionage ring, living under false names and deep cover in a patient scheme to penetrate what one coded message called American “policymaking circles.”
An F.B.I. investigation that began at least seven years ago culminated with the arrest on Sunday of 10 people in Yonkers, Boston, and northern Virginia. The documents detailed what the authorities called the “Illegals Program,” an ambitious, long-term effort by the S.V.R., the successor to the Soviet K.G.B., to plant Russian spies in the United States to gather information and recruit more agents.
But the charges did not include espionage, and it was unclear what secrets the suspected spy ring — which included five couples — actually managed to collect or what prompted American authorities to finally shut it down.
more at link...
If you want to learn in depth KGB techniques, watch this documentary interview with Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB propagandist. Amazing.
http://current.com/news-and-politics/92481902_soviet-subverion-of-the-free-world-press.htmWASHINGTON — They had lived for more than a decade in American cities and... more
-
-
To provide a new and spurious economic looting argument for making the US occupation of Afghanistan virtually endless, and to advance the candidacy of General David Petraeus as the principal neocon warmonger candidate for president on the Republican ticket in 2012 – these are the purposes of the story planted in the June 13, 2010 New York Times under the byline of James Risen, who is acting as stenographer for the neocons in the great tradition of his predecessor Judith Miller. In retrospect, this article may well be seen as the opening gun of an overt push to place General Petraeus in the White House in 2012 as the new Field Marshal von Hindenburg.
According to this story, a Pentagon survey has determined that Afghanistan possesses at least $1 trillion worth of valuable minerals, including iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and lithium – with lithium being especially valuable because it is used in batteries for computers and for the new designs of electric automobiles. Of course, none of this is news, as the article itself concedes. The surveys done by the US occupation authorities over the last several years are explicitly based on careful studies done by the Soviets during their own occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s. The basic outlines of what is being presented by Risen as front-page news were already published in a May 2004 World Bank report, which was used to dictate minerals legislation to the Afghan government. More recently, Afghan mineral wealth has been hyped by the Afghan embassy in Washington on various occasions, and was a featured theme of the visit here last month by Afghan President Karzai.
Candidate Petraeus Touts “Stunning Potential”
This planted puff piece is based on anonymous “senior US government officials.” The only exception is General David Petraeus, the warlord of the US Central Command, the theater of operations in which Afghanistan is located. Petraeus is directly cited as saying that the Afghan mineral riches whose presence the US has confirmed represent a “stunning potential” for the future development of the country. The implied message from Petraeus to the Washington elite is, to paraphrase, support me and cash in on the riches of Afghanistan, or else wimpy Obama’s self-serving pullout timetable will allow the Chinese to move in.
The repackaging and rehashing of the Afghan mineral story at this time represents a bid to mobilize political support by Wall Street, major minerals corporations, and other predatory interests to keep the US occupation of Afghanistan going far beyond the July 2011 date set by Obama for the beginning of a gradual pullout of US forces. The article makes clear that, if the US should depart from Afghanistan, the immense mineral wealth will fall easy prey to China. China, it is noted, has already taken over a copper mine in Afghanistan. In March of this year, it was a sudden alarm in Washington that Karzai’s Afghanistan was slipping into the Chinese orbit that motivated Obama’s hasty visit to Kabul. The implication is that, whether or not these minerals can actually be developed by the United States, it is imperative to stay in Afghanistan to make sure that they are denied to the Chinese.
The planted story is also designed to counter the growing war fatigue and defeatism among the US-led coalition, which is building up in advance of the NATO summit scheduled for Lisbon, Portugal this coming November. This coalition currently includes 46 nations, representing one third of the military forces deployed, and an even larger portion of the logistics necessary for the occupation. The new British regime has been signaling that its commitment to Afghanistan will not be eternal. Prime Minister David Cameron told British Tommies in Afghanistan that they will be brought home just as soon as their task is finished. Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup, the highest ranking uniformed military figure in the UK, is being ousted in a signal of deep cuts to come for the British military establishment. Poland has demanded that NATO come up with a detailed exit plan for ending the Afghan engagement. In Germany, the most recent poll shows about 70% opposition to the endless war, and budget cuts are looming in that country as well. The Netherlands and Canada both intend to withdraw their contingents from Afghanistan next year. Turkey is another country with a presence in Afghanistan that may soon become fed up with this adventure, especially because of the contemptuous and shoddy treatment meted out to the Turks by the State Department over the Iran uranium enrichment and Gaza aid flotilla issues. All signs suggest that, when the Afghan engagement comes up for discussion at the November NATO summit in Lisbon, disaffection and defection will be the dominant notes.
NATO defeatism comes on top of growing disaffection with Obama’s endless war inside the United States: the newest poll has a majority of 53% convinced that prolonging the Afghanistan war is not worth the sacrifices involved. Even more acute is the growing backlash from inside the Democratic Party. Congressman Charlie Rangel of Harlem recently assailed Obama as being “consistent with” Bush and Cheney when it comes to lying about the wars he is conducting.
Webster G. Tarpley
June 20, 2010
more at link...RT could be the best 24 hour news network; definitely has the best guests.To provide a new and spurious economic looting argument for making the US occupation... more
-
-
Passing strange signs of passage- INTERACTIVE
A recent slide show, "A Sampling of Chinglish," which accompanied a story by Andrew Jacobs, showed signs in Chinese paired with unusual and often funny English translations. We asked readers to share photos of amusingly translated or otherwise quirky signs that they've found during their travels. Click an image to enlarge it, and scroll to browse through the collection.
Watch for the signs---
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/11/travel/funny-signs.html?src=me&ref=generalPassing strange signs of passage- INTERACTIVE
A recent slide show, "A... more
-
-
So Conan is officially off the air. Leno comes back to replace him in March. The whole world seems to be disappointed. Everyone except Ben Hoffman. He's pissed that you even cared.
I have to admit the only episode of Conan's Tonight Show, I watched on TV was one two weeks ago at the height of the controversy. I caught the last few minutes of Conan's finale on Hulu. Hoffman makes a good point:
"Nobody watches late night talk shows anymore. Okay some people do, but they'll be dead soon."
A recent New York Times article suggests that Conan's low ratings were easily predictable...
"not because Mr. O’Brien does not appeal to younger viewers — he clearly does, as evidenced by the large numbers he attracted for his closing shows — but because regularly assembling those young adult viewers in significant numbers in the late-night hours has become a daunting, if not impossible, task."
If young people spend their late nights in front of a television, they're more likely to be watching cable or watching DVR'd episodes of primetime shows. This demographic still watches the funniest clips, but on Hulu, after they read about them in the blogosphere.
The same blogosphere is responsible for making late night's jokes stale. Ben points out that "I heard a funnier joke on Gawker, six hours ago." The internet teases out every joke, before television can. (A few months ago Joe Wilson, mentioned a similar idea for stand-up.)
What does that mean for the future of late night network television? I dunno, but I'll probably hear about it first online.So Conan is officially off the air. Leno comes back to replace him in March. The whole... more
-
-
CEO pulls home $5mil in '09, and now they're laying off 100 employees (another post (mediadecoder . blogs . nytimes . com/2009/10/19/times-says-it-will-cut-100-newsroom-jobs)
)...great job NYT
NEW YORK (AP) - An analysis by The Associated Press shows that New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson got roughly $4.9 million in compensation in 2009.
Robinson's base salary fell 4 percent to $962,500. But she got a bonus of about $2.3 million, four times the size of her 2008 bonus.
Robinson also received stock options that were worth $1.6 million when they were granted. About $560,000 of that was meant to replace options that had been given in 2008 and were later voided because they exceeded a limit set by company bylaws.
The AP's executive pay calculation, based on a regulatory filing, aims to isolate the value the company's board placed on a CEO's compensation package. The figure includes salary, bonus, incentives, perks and the estimated value of stock options and awards.CEO pulls home $5mil in '09, and now they're laying off 100 employees... more
-
-
diode
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Apple’s first iPad commercial showed off more than just functionality. It also revealed a couple of other interesting things.Apple’s first iPad commercial showed off more than just functionality. It also... more
-
-
Please retract your Nov. 5, 2007 issue brief titled “Bans on Yield-Spread Premiums and Steering: Protecting Homeowners and Strengthening the Mortgage Market”. I am asking for your retraction because its definition of yield spread is false. Your request for a ban on yield spread lacks substance due its use of a false definition.Please retract your Nov. 5, 2007 issue brief titled “Bans on Yield-Spread... more
-
-
There's a heated turf war going on inside the New York Times over the iPad, pitting print die-hards against people focused on the Times ' digital future.There's a heated turf war going on inside the New York Times over the iPad,... more
-
-
Dispatching more troops to Afghanistan would be a monumental bet and probably a bad one, most likely a waste of lives and resources that might simply empower the Taliban. In particular, one of the most compelling arguments against more troops rests on this stunning trade-off: For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there.
It’s hard to do the calculation precisely, but for the cost of 40,000 troops over a few years — well, we could just about turn every Afghan into a Ph.D.
Seems obvious to me...Dispatching more troops to Afghanistan would be a monumental bet and probably a bad... more
-
-
Some NYTimes.com readers have seen a pop-up box warning them about a virus and directing them to a site that claims to offer antivirus software. We believe this was generated by an unauthorized advertisement and are working to prevent the problem from recurring. If you see such a warning, we suggest that you not click on it. Instead, quit and restart your Web browser.
(Left wingers can click)Some NYTimes.com readers have seen a pop-up box warning them about a virus and... more
-
-
synjun
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
