12 votes

The Times admits it deep-sixed Ron Paul

Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman, and Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator. Their strong showings on Tuesday, following the serial derailments of other contenders, showed just how hard it is for the paper to read the plotline of this contest.

Read more...

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/01/the_times_admit...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

superb article!

That is one of the best I've read in a long time. Incisive, witty, factual... just great stuff.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

The New York Slimes

... shall be their new name.

Bump

Great article.
Posting on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

It's precisely because

It's precisely because pompous-ass media hacks keep trying to "read the plotline" (i.e. spew unwanted and ignorant opinions) instead of reporting events that actually happen that they can count their audience numbers on their fingers and toes.

Maybe if you myopic jackasses quit trying to apply Establishment Template 1 and/or Establishment Template 2 to every election story, you'd have more readers.

Reality is much fuller and more interesting when you allow yourself to really view it.

Beautiful!

"It's called the news business, Dickey boy. The news in this campaign is Ron Paul."

Proposed Name Change

I think it would be more appropriate not to call them, "The Times," and, instead, to call them, "A Times." They certainly don't monopolize the truth.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

It's

the headline to the article itself.

You Misunderstood

I'm not commenting on your post, or the article you link to, but to the conclusion I reached from reading both: "The Times" fails to deserve "the" distinction we once might have given it, of being "the" source for news.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/