NYT EXPOSED! ECHOES CLINTON STATEMENT ONCE ATTACKED!

Shocking, New York Times has lost a bit more credibility in my mind, if it ever had any.

In a world of hypocrites, Bob Herbert of the New York Times is one of the most transparent.

Last year in a FOX interview with Major Garrett on January 7, 2008 Hillary Clinton said:

“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people’s lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.”

The New York Times and other media outlets responded by helping the Obama campaign twist these statements and others to successfully portray the Clintons as racists. Bob Herbert wrote in the Times on January 12, 2008: “And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don’t need ‘false hopes,’ and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”

Now, over one year later, Herbert wrote on January 19, 2009:

“Johnson’s contributions to the betterment of American life were nothing short of monumental. For blacks, he opened the door to the American mainstream with a herculean effort that resulted in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He followed up that bit of mastery with the Voting Rights Act of 1965…Without Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama and so many others would have traveled a much more circumscribed path. I wish Johnson could be there, his commitment to civil rights so publicly vindicated, his eyes no doubt misting as the oath of office is administered.”

Oh really? So was Herbert, the Times, and the rest of the media wrong last year for castigating Mrs. Clinton when she acknowledged Johnson’s indelible role in the civil rights movement? Incredibly, Herbert does not even acknowledge Mrs. Clintons sentiments from last year, which appalled him.

If Herbert were a person of integrity, he would write a column apologizing to Mrs. Clinton. I don’t know how so-called ‘journalists’ sleep at night knowing how they wrongly tried to assassinate the Clintons’ character with abuse of the race card, but I do know why New York Times stock is now worth less than a roll of toilet paper.

Reposted from DONE (Democrats Over Nominating Elitists) article One Year Later, NY Times Echoes Hillary’s Once “Racist” MLK/LBJ Quote 

NYT on Palin

I just discovered this on Sarah Palin:

Ms. Palin, the former mayor of Wasilla, stands out in a state that has seen few fresh faces in politics. She is untainted by government scandal and unburdened by political debt.

The liberal New York Times on Sarah Palin.

Media Bias: Proof

The LA Times Online reports that according to a new report from Investors Business Daily journalists have given a total of $225,563 to Democrats, and $16,298 to Republicans. The Investors Business Daily also reported that 235 journalists have given to democrats, while only 20 have given to republicans. Thats pretty sorry, we need our press rooms to be bi-partisan; not weighted by better than 11:1 against the Republicans. Keep this in mind when you discuss media bias. If John McCain loses to Barack Obama its because this. Evidently there was something similar going on against Senator Clinton. Of course the LA Times is the king of media bias, or at least a top contender against NBC and NYT, I’m surprised that they would let their online people publish an article like that. But they did end it with a little biting statement for their 20 conservative colleagues:

Those same donation figures could also be used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republican journalists are a whole lot stingier than their liberal colleagues.

Wait a second, the figures were that 235 journalists donated 225,563 dollars to democrats, while 20 donated 16,298 to republicans. That means the average democratic journalists’ donation was approximately $960, while the average republican journalists’ donation was was approximately $815. Is that really a lot stingier? Frankly its more than the average person will give, so I guess the average person is “stingy”. Maybe its because its hard for those 20 republicans to get promoted when their outnumbered 11:2 by their liberal colleagues, so their pay checks are lower? So again LA Times tried to create a false impression that the liberal ones somehow are more passionate for their cause. At least they got right that the journalists that donate to democrats are liberal not moderate, the democrats aren’t centrist anymore.

The McCain Op-ed that the New York Times was scared to publish

New York periodicals have been in the spolight lately, first it was the New Yorker, and now the New York Times, both show the huge media bias against Senator McCain. So anyways the Flagship Democratic Propaganda Media Machine, aka The New York Times, not giving equal time to the two candidates op-ed on the Iraq War, although they gave it(McCain’s) more press by not publishing it.