Snapshot (a continuing series)

We are well accustomed to the practice of the New York Times to hypocritically and cynically accept paid advertisements from the most nefarious of sources. The anti—Semitic Council for the National Interest and the genocidal Sudanese government are just the latest incarnations of this anti—American syndrome.  The Times enjoys profits doing the bidding of anti—American regimes and hate—mongers. Lest we think that in the modern age few traditions last, apparently this one does at the Times.

I have been reading the superb new book by Mark Bowden, Guest of the Ayatollah. The book is an outstanding portrayal of the actors involved in the hostage crisis during the dark days (were there any light days?) of the Carter Administration. The Iranian hostage takers, who had been physically and mentally abusing 66 Americans (and thousands and thousands of Iranians), wanted to get "their side" of the argument out to the American people.  To quote Bowden (page 246):

[Their spokeswoman Nilufar Ebtekar} * and other hostage takers were mystified by the lack of American support for their action, particularly the lack of sympathy from American blacks and other "oppressed minorities," and had concluded that their problem was media censorship in the United States. The American government was blocking and distorting their message. One effort to break through this supposed censorship was a half—page ad in the New York Times (the Washington Post refused to run it) calling on Americans to "Rise Up Against Oppression," referring to the hostages as "spies" and placing Carter in the "vanguard of the world's oppressors"

Certainly the Times has a peculiar and cynical take on the profit motive: they can rail against executive compensation for businessmen who work to create or run successful companies, but have no problem taking money from regimes or groups that sponsor hate and genocide.

The Times similarly can attack country and hunting clubs but celebrate wealthy heirs and beneficiaries of nepotism (see their Sunday Styles section where the marriage announcements read like merger announcements, in the words of columnist David Brooks). 

They can prattle on about shareholder rights, but are one of the worst practitioners of a two—tiered stock structureby which the Sulzberger family enjoys supervoting rights and control the corporation despite having a miniscule ownership percentage.

The Times can attack unfair option grants given to corporate chiefs but remain silent about their publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger's high salary and favorable option grants while hundreds of employees are fired and the corporation's stock price plummets. 

The Times can highlight the travails of the poor and homeless—especially during Republican Administrations—yet promote  a lifestyle called "luxury pornography" by The New Republic .  But I digress and ramble....the main principle is that the New York Times has no principle...they take money from hate groups now and they took money from American hostage takers then.
 
* Ebtekar appears to be the same woman, nicknamed Screaming Mary by the hostages who loather her for good reason, who was recently awarded a prize as a "Champion of the Earth" by the United Nations.

Ed Lasky   5 01 06

We are well accustomed to the practice of the New York Times to hypocritically and cynically accept paid advertisements from the most nefarious of sources. The anti—Semitic Council for the National Interest and the genocidal Sudanese government are just the latest incarnations of this anti—American syndrome.  The Times enjoys profits doing the bidding of anti—American regimes and hate—mongers. Lest we think that in the modern age few traditions last, apparently this one does at the Times.

I have been reading the superb new book by Mark Bowden, Guest of the Ayatollah. The book is an outstanding portrayal of the actors involved in the hostage crisis during the dark days (were there any light days?) of the Carter Administration. The Iranian hostage takers, who had been physically and mentally abusing 66 Americans (and thousands and thousands of Iranians), wanted to get "their side" of the argument out to the American people.  To quote Bowden (page 246):

[Their spokeswoman Nilufar Ebtekar} * and other hostage takers were mystified by the lack of American support for their action, particularly the lack of sympathy from American blacks and other "oppressed minorities," and had concluded that their problem was media censorship in the United States. The American government was blocking and distorting their message. One effort to break through this supposed censorship was a half—page ad in the New York Times (the Washington Post refused to run it) calling on Americans to "Rise Up Against Oppression," referring to the hostages as "spies" and placing Carter in the "vanguard of the world's oppressors"

Certainly the Times has a peculiar and cynical take on the profit motive: they can rail against executive compensation for businessmen who work to create or run successful companies, but have no problem taking money from regimes or groups that sponsor hate and genocide.

The Times similarly can attack country and hunting clubs but celebrate wealthy heirs and beneficiaries of nepotism (see their Sunday Styles section where the marriage announcements read like merger announcements, in the words of columnist David Brooks). 

They can prattle on about shareholder rights, but are one of the worst practitioners of a two—tiered stock structureby which the Sulzberger family enjoys supervoting rights and control the corporation despite having a miniscule ownership percentage.

The Times can attack unfair option grants given to corporate chiefs but remain silent about their publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger's high salary and favorable option grants while hundreds of employees are fired and the corporation's stock price plummets. 

The Times can highlight the travails of the poor and homeless—especially during Republican Administrations—yet promote  a lifestyle called "luxury pornography" by The New Republic .  But I digress and ramble....the main principle is that the New York Times has no principle...they take money from hate groups now and they took money from American hostage takers then.
 
* Ebtekar appears to be the same woman, nicknamed Screaming Mary by the hostages who loather her for good reason, who was recently awarded a prize as a "Champion of the Earth" by the United Nations.

Ed Lasky   5 01 06