Demosophia

To start off, I don't read the times, and am unaware of how good a newspaper it is, I have just heard it is one of the more credible newspapers out there. So, my post is mainly based on what your post includes. Your attacks on the NYtimes are cheap shots and really have no foundation to attack the times as a credible newspaper publication. Their billing methods and delivery procedures (or just plain incompetent delivery employees) have nothing to do with the continuity or crediblity of the newspaper. However it does give you reason to be upset of course because you didn't get the product you ordered. I also don't think this problem is common, otherwise the Times would no longer be in business. In your reference to the "s-word", I think what you mean is you prefer a communist nation where freedom of speech is not allowed. Any criticism of a president or any political leader is not welcomed and is treason. Just my thoughts.

Well, strictly speaking my problem with the Times could have been resolved pretty quickly If they'd simply stopped pestering me for the subscription fee for the papers they never delivered. And if I don't hold them accountable for that, just who is accountable. I should think that a reputable organization would have been appalled that their delivery service was dumping their paper on the sidewalk in front of the building. This contrasts rather sharply with the delivery of the Washington Post which was to the apartment door, or the Christian Science Monitor which was to the mailbox.

Now, fast forward to the Jayson Blair/Howell Raines controversy, the refusal to retract inaccuracies in Maureen Doud's screeds, or a number of other examples of shoddy journalistic standards. One wonders how one saves the reputation of journalism in general if one will not willing to hold those with poor standards to some account. Is this serving journalism in the long run, or contributing to its demise?

In your reference to the "s-word", I think what you mean is you prefer a communist nation where freedom of speech is not allowed. Any criticism of a president or any political leader is not welcomed and is treason. Just my thoughts.

Well, shockingly, all I'm saying is that if you advocate political assassination in print during wartime it might be considered sedition. This isn't rocket surgery.

You are right that it was bad that the delivery service workers were incompetent. But, did you even read my post, or for that matter, did you even read the NY Times article. Just because your individual case of improper delivery, does NOT mean that happens to everyone who orders a newspaper from the Times. Like i said, if they did that to everyone, they wouldn't be in business. As far as your "advocating political assassination" article goes, I don't know if you just read the headline, but the article is not suggesting someone go assasinate the president. It is plainly describing how the democratic party is in trouble, which you think would make any partisan republican happy to read. Also, one additional question, why do you even read the times if you think they are incompetent, explain that one to me. Do you just read to look for reasons to hate them, that sounds kind of pathetic.

Again (I don't know how many times I have to say this) my problem with the Times billing had as much to do with the fact that they refused to stop billing me for services not rendered as for the failure to deliver. Purely anecdotal, but it impresses me on an individual level that, as far as they're concerned anyway, I'm less a customer than a "subject." I got the distinct impression, because I talked with many people including supervisors, that this was some sort of policy rather than an isolated mistake. it sometimes takes quite awhile for such policies to have an impact on sales, but I believe that the NYT circulation has been falling off for awhile.

As far as your "advocating political assassination" article goes, I don't know if you just read the headline, but the article is not suggesting someone go assasinate the president.

Well, not in so many words perhaps, but certainly with a wink and a nod (saynahmore, saynahmore). Perhaps you might consider it a mere literary contrivance to equate political assissinations with "acts of God" and then suggest that an "act of God" might deliver us, but to pretend that isn't isn't catering to a treasonous fantasy is pure artifice.

Give me a break, already. It's not as though I just fell off a turnip truck.

why do you even read the times if you think they are incompetent, explain that one to me. Do you just read to look for reasons to hate them, that sounds kind of pathetic.

You may not have noticed, but the topic that the mainstream media have been deliberately leading and misleading public opinion is a topic of much discussion, and I might add a valid one. Not only do they shade editorials in a particular direction, in such a manner that it's empirically obvious, but they've also been known to promote untruths... and so far mostly untruths that would tend to help only the Democrats.

Why would you think this not a valid topic motivating action unless you were "in the tank" as they say? But fear not, I don't read the Times very much. And it's not just that I think they're biased, but that I think they're unreliable even on topics that have little to do with a partisan bent. There are, of course, notable exceptions like John Burns, who is worth reading any time, and Tom Friedman, who used to be worth reading (and sometimes still is).

As far as unbiased and accurate reporting, the NYT was passed by the WaPo some time ago, so that the former has become something of a joke: the American answer to The Guardian.

Ok, thank you for explaining moreover how based on discussion with supervisors that this scenario of yours is not just an individual occurance, and a general circulation practice, which does suggest overall incompetence of those delegating circulation, which I did not realize based on your posts. And yes, the headline is suggestive in a sense, I won't deny that, but I don't think that it's an act of treason or attempts to promote the assasination of the president, that is a mere exxageration. You took me out of context and talked around what I have said and made condescending assumptions, but in doing so, you did verify that you read the times to give you reasons to dislike them. The origin of my motivated response was based on an unfounded attack just due to circulation. Circulation does not necessarily reflect the quality of the publication and writing of the articles, which I was trying to say. Your disagreements with the so called "biased" newspaper are a more credible argument that I cannot argue one way or another because I don't read the Times, nor did I ever mean to talk down about those sort of attacks. Just my thoughts, but I will continue to read your website and occasionally respond because I think you do promote discussion and offer intelligent views that are debateable.

I think it's realistic to assume that the author, and the editorial staff that allowed the article, intended to press an orientation toward the President that was not averse to the "assassination" interpretation. There's a sort of thrill that one gets by skirting the edge, and were it not for a much broader pattern the article probably wouldn't concern me. But I think this is part of a trend that legitimates a "fifth column" sort of attitude, fully developed in the UK and mainstream on the continent. Such a movement had developed in the US, the UK and France prior to the Nazi invasion of Poland and had to be actively quelled once the battle had been joined. In France they had even achieved majority status. This is not a minor danger, and it will eventually (I think) spawn a homegrown terrorist movement. It's theme song probably ought to be the Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil."

I think much is "debatable" as long as we agree on the central thesis that expansion of the democratic franchise makes the world safer, in the long run (though perhaps more volatile in the short run). Absent agreement about that, there really isn't much to discuss. Timothy Garton, who is not a "neocon" as far as I can tell, refers to this project as the development af "A Free World" from "The Free World." And he also believes that it must eventually enfold China.

We can, in other words, debate means, as long as we agree about ends.