► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Did Breivik ever comment at Gates of Vienna?

by 1389AD ( 15 Comments › )
Filed under Crime, Europe, Media, Special Report at July 27th, 2011 - 10:00 am

GoV: Fitting Us Into Their Agenda

Screen cap: NYT on Oslo and GoV
As most readers know by now, Gates of Vienna has experienced a massive surge of traffic in the last few days, thanks to the manifesto written by Anders Behring Breivik, the accused murderer of seventy-six people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya.

The increased traffic forced us to close our blog to comments, since they became too numerous and contentious to monitor. It also brought a vast flood of emails, the full quantity of which we are having difficulty reading, much less responding to.

Yesterday Fjordman welcomed new readers from Der Spiegel and Dagbladet. Later in the day he could have added Aftenposten to the list. Then late last night The New York Times surprised us by deigning to take notice of our existence.

The New York Times has traditionally been nicknamed “The Old Grey Lady”, but it seems the lady may be getting a bit long in the tooth, perhaps even moving into her dotage. Her reporting on the Oslo incident reflects what we have long come to expect from the paper: it gives a not-so-subtle push to help readers reach the conclusion that “anti-Islamic” websites and writers indirectly caused the carnage in Norway.

This is what one of her reporters, a man named Steven Erlanger, wrote about us yesterday:

Mr. Breivik was said by analysts to have been an occasional commenter on a blog, Gates of Vienna, which is topped by these words: “At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.”

Well, at least he quoted our masthead right — I’ll give him that.

But the assertion that Mr. Breivik had commented here is, as far as I can determine, not true.

I don’t know who the NYT hires to be its “analysts”, but we have our own team, the guys I call “the Scandinavian Gang of Five” — Fjordman, Henrik, Reinhard, Kitman, and KGS. Collectively they are fluent in English, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, German, and several other European languages. Their own contacts give them an additional reach into events throughout Scandinavia.

All in all, I’d say that’s a pretty good team of analysts.

On Saturday morning I asked for their help in finding the customary screen names used by Anders Behring Breivik in his postings around various Scandinavian websites. There were four or five altogether, and I searched our comment archives for any instances of those names or their close variants. As far as I could tell, there were none to be found. If Mr. Breivik hung out here, he must have used a different nickname.

The fact that the Times’ “analysts” had said the purported killer had commented here prompted me to email the reporter and ask him for the screen name under which Mr. Breivik had commented at Gates of Vienna, and also the names and credentials of the “analysts” who determined this fact.

That was last night, and Mr. Erlanger has not replied to my email as of post time. What’s more, the Times’ article was updated this morning and reposted at a new URL for today’s edition, with the identical paragraph about GoV included intact.

Thus it is only proper to publish a copy of the email I sent to the NYT last night:

Subject: Your article on the Oslo killer 

Mr. Erlanger,

In your article today at this URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/europe/25oslo.html

You state:

“Mr. Breivik was said by analysts to have been an occasional commenter on a blog, Gates of Vienna…”

and you include a link to our blog:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

My wife and I are the proprietors of the blog “Gates of Vienna”. What you said is not true, as far as we can determine.

Yesterday, as soon as the information on Mr. Breivik became widely known, I consulted my Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish contacts to learn all the known screen names used by the killer in his postings on forums and blogs. Then I searched our comments archives, and there were no comments under any of those names.

I ask you to tell me:

(1) The names and credentials of the “analysts” who said that Mr. Breivik was a commenter on our blog, and
(2) What screen name he is alleged to have used to post those comments.

Then I can determine the factuality of the assertion made by those “analysts”.

If you cannot do this, I request that you withdraw the above-quoted statement, and post a public retraction.

If someone supplies me with the likely nick for Oslo berserker, and it turns out that he has in fact commented here in the past, I will not only not delete his comments, I will track them down and post at least some of them on the main page.

Our increased readership, gives us the good fortune to be able to publicize the way we do business here, which is different from the customary practices of the mainstream media. We acknowledge error, post retractions, and publish the truth, even if that truth might sometimes make us uncomfortable or unhappy.

Not so for “America’s Paper of Record” — which could be better described as “America’s Propaganda Organ for the Progressive Trans-Nationalists”.

Or, to paraphrase its own masthead: “All The News That Fits Our Agenda, We Print.”

Update:

Comments by Breivik at Gates of Vienna

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Crime, Europe, Media, Special Report | 15 Comments »

The New York Times Christmas Day Death Panel Discussion

by Bunk Five Hawks X ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Breaking News, Democratic Party, Health Care, Healthcare, History, Links, Media, Politics, Progressives at December 27th, 2010 - 2:00 pm


Interesting that the New York Times thought to publish a piece of inconvenient truth on Christmas Day. The article addresses the known concerns about Obamacare and euthanasia of the elderly, yet has one more little tidbit thrown in:

Proponents asked that the truth not be forwarded.

It’s not necessary to repost the entire NYT flying pig moment here (it’s linked below) but check out the opening paragraphs:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

Read the rest for yourselves, but don’t miss this:

Several Democratic [sic] members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”

The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

The details of Obamacare include nothing less than a slightly modified resurrection of the eugenics movement of the 1930s, and it’s still pure evil.

[h/t Aardvarks & Asshats]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Breaking News, Democratic Party, Health Care, Healthcare, History, Links, Media, Politics, Progressives | 109 Comments »

NYT: Obamanomics is Hitlernomics

by snork ( 49 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Media, Politics at April 21st, 2010 - 9:30 pm

…and they say that’s a good thing.

This story is a year old, but I just stumbled across it. In March of 2009, the NYT ran a piece in the economy section, extolling the virtues of porkulus:

In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

Yay Nazis! Economic geniuses of their time!

Dumb and outrageous as that may have been by itself, the author then jumps shark #2 with the next paragraph:

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escapethe Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.

Only through collective bargaining does the wealth created by the private sector trickle down to the workers? How many employees in the American private sector are unionized? Are the rest of them working for slave wages? Are you, Mr. journalist genius?

No sane person enjoys mixing nuance and Nazis, but this bit of economic history has a particular importance this week. In the run-up to the G-20 meeting, European leaders have resisted calls for more government spending. Last week, the European Union president, Mirek Topolanek, echoed a line from AC/DC — whom he had just heard in concert — and described the Obama administration’s stimulus plan as “a road to hell.”

The inevitable “big but”. The Euros are resisting the irrefutable logic of the Obamanians, and ignoring their own glorious history of the 1930s which proves the Obama approach superior to the outmoded fiscal restraint that the benighted Europeans seem stuck on.

Here in the United States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered pretty clearly in the last century.

Yes, stimulus works.

Thank you, Mr. Hitler. You have shone the path.

George Soros, the billionaire investor who was born in Budapest and works in New York, came to Washington last week and captured both the problem and the potential for a solution. “I think they can be brought around,” he said of the Europeans. “I am actually hopeful something constructive can happen.”

You learned well from your masters, didn’t you, George?

But then again, the NYT is just being true to form. They never met a totalitarian system they didn’t immediately fall in love with.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Media, Politics | 49 Comments »

The NYT — defending murderous dictators since Walter Duranty

by Mojambo ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Cuba, Media at March 3rd, 2010 - 8:30 am

Walter Duranty – the man who denied that there was a famine in the Ukraine  (1932 -33) – Stalin’s favorite Western journalist, was one of the worst reporters ever. Unfortunately he was not alone,  others such as Castro’s de facto public relations man Herbert Matthews were just as bad. To this day the New York Times instead of trying to get at a story puts its ideological objectives first. Let us also not forget the disgraceful non coverage of the Holocaust as it was unfolding because W.A.S.H. (White Anglo Saxon Hebrew) publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was afraid that the Times would be referred to as a “Jewish” newspaper. The Times Middle East correspondents are (with some exceptions) particularly bad as well.

by Humberto Fontava

“A foreign reporter — preferably American — was much more valuable to us at that time (1957) than any military victory,” wrote Ernesto “Che” Guevara in his diaries. “Much more valuable than rural recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda.”

“We cannot for a second abandon propaganda. Propaganda is vital — propaganda is the heart of all struggles,” said Fidel Castro in a letter to a revolutionary colleague in 1954.

“In all essentials Castro’s battle for Cuba was a public relations campaign fought in New York and Washington.” — British historian Hugh Thomas

Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore Cuba’s Constitution…this amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist. (Herbert Matthews, New York Times Feb. 1957.)

[…]

“One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting,” blared a New York Times headline on Jan 4, 1959 about the “battle” of Santa Clara in central Cuba where Ernesto “Che” Guevara earned much of his enduring martial mystique. “Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties,” continues the Times article. “Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men.”

A year later, Che’s own diaries revealed that his forces suffered exactly one casualty during this Caribbean Stalingrad, as depicted by the Times.  British historian Sir Hugh Thomas, author of a 1700 page Cuban history and who initially vied with Herbert Matthews as a Castro sycophant, claims a grand total of six casualties for this Caribbean Verdun. Your humble servant here interviewed several eye-witnesses (on both sides) to this “battle” and their consensus came to about five casualties total for this Caribbean Iwo Jima.

True to New York Times– form, during this “battle,” they didn’t have a reporter within 300 miles of Santa Clara.  Instead they relied on their trusty Cuban Castroite “correspondents.”

Read the rest here: The New York Times — Defending Murderous Dictators Since Walter Duranty

UPDATE – an interesting article from seven years ago about Walter Duranty – Pulizter Winning Lies.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Cuba, Media | 195 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »