Saturday, December 02, 2006

could the NY Times move to the (choke) right?

Found this on Tom Shakely and Friends Site.

Maurice Greenberg, Republican Donor, Moves To Buy New York Times


Published by Tom Shakely on November 29th, 2006 under National News No comments
In surprising news today, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the billionaire insurance mogul, has been positioning himself to obtain majority shareholder status in the New York Times Company, thereby breaking the stranglehold by the current Sulzberger media family.

This would be big news, not only because of new ownership but because Greenberg has donated to Republicans in the past, meaning that he might be in a position to reinvent the modern New York Times as a newspaper that doesn’t print every leak and anti-American piece of terrorist-aiding propaganda it can find.

Well, maybe that was a little harsh, but the current New York Times definitely doesn’t have American’s national security interests in mind usually, and it would be nice to see some brave new ownership at the staggering giant.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh for goodness sakes! The NY Times moved to the right years ago, with their anti-Clinton slagging, and with the Judy Miller reporting that actually led us into this fruitless war of choice.

This idea is behind the curve...I know you guys can do better, and I'm depending on you to do better.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Excuse me, Mudkitty? Are you saying that the NYT's treasonous activities of late was something other than liberal leftwing socialistic BS? don't have time to argue, heading off to church. I'll pray for you. Liberal blindness is cureable.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Gunz - I don't agree with Mudkitty.

KurtP said...

Mudkitty- The only reason the NYT reported on the Clinton fiasco was that there was just too much to gloss over.

"War of choice"??
I though Libs were all FOR choice

Anonymous said...

Kurtp - not when it comes to frivilous wars...abortion is a personal decision, war is not. But then you knew that.

*****

The NYTimes was one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders in the build up to Bush's war. So no, I don't consider the NYTimes to be left in any way shape or form. In fact, you can have it. We don't want it.

Liberals gave up on that paper years ago. Sorry you guys aren't up to date enough to know that, but if you want to know what liberals think, just ask one. And here I am.

Anonymous said...

Doug:

Liberalism is a mental disease. It's the syphilis of ideologies, resulting in madness and blindness.

Anonymous said...

LaRouche is a rightwinger BTW.

prying1 said...

Sure, LaRouche is a right winger. All the people on the right follow him faithfully. That is why he has been elected to the office of President so many times all through the years...

He's so far to the right he is closer to God than John Lennon ever could be...

Go back to sleep mudkitty and we will too...

(snoring sounds)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Why, I didn't use profanity, I didn't use your forbidden words?