Blood money for NYT

By

When Moody's announced it was considering lowering the rating of New York Times Company debt instruments, it cited weak cash flow as one factor. Apparently, almost a million dollars has flowed into its coffers from an 8 page advertising section sponsored by the genocidal regime ruling impoverished Sudan.

Gateway Pundit, Gotham Gazette and and FelixSalmon.com deserve great credit for bringing this to light. Gatewway Pundit notes:

The New York Times explains this months publication policy:

...Daily News columnist Lloyd Grove quotes a Times spokesperson as saying the paper took the ad because of "our strong belief that all pages of the paper " news, editorial and advertising " must remain open to the free flow of ideas." But Mickey MacLean at World Views speculates that "it also didn't hurt that an estimated $929,000 freely flowed into the newspaper's coffers as a result of the section."

But, here is how the New York Times answered the same question last month when asked why they would not publish the Muhammad cartoons:

The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words.

Unless of course, it is a dung covered Virgin Mary painting

Hat tips: Larwyn and Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson  3 22 06

When Moody's announced it was considering lowering the rating of New York Times Company debt instruments, it cited weak cash flow as one factor. Apparently, almost a million dollars has flowed into its coffers from an 8 page advertising section sponsored by the genocidal regime ruling impoverished Sudan.

Gateway Pundit, Gotham Gazette and and FelixSalmon.com deserve great credit for bringing this to light. Gatewway Pundit notes:

The New York Times explains this months publication policy:

...Daily News columnist Lloyd Grove quotes a Times spokesperson as saying the paper took the ad because of "our strong belief that all pages of the paper " news, editorial and advertising " must remain open to the free flow of ideas." But Mickey MacLean at World Views speculates that "it also didn't hurt that an estimated $929,000 freely flowed into the newspaper's coffers as a result of the section."

But, here is how the New York Times answered the same question last month when asked why they would not publish the Muhammad cartoons:

The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words.

Unless of course, it is a dung covered Virgin Mary painting

Hat tips: Larwyn and Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson  3 22 06