Is The New York Times Setting the Old Media Up?

They get to be the "bad, bad liberal media" and get Rush and the ditto's of the nation to send McCain money. Judge the tree by the fruit: NYT has been helping McCain.

Here is every media outlet the NYT owns

They are old media

The Boston Globe
The Courier (Houma, LA)
The Daily Comet (Thibodaux, LA)
The Dispatch (Lexington, NC)
The Gadsden Times (AL)
The Gainesville Sun (FL)
International Herald Tribune
The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
The New York Times
The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA)
Petaluma Argus-Courier (CA)
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)
Spartanburg Herald-Journal (SC)
Star-Banner (Ocala, FL)
TimesDaily (Florence, AL)
Times-News (Hendersonville, NC)
The Tuscaloosa News (AL)
The Star News (Wilmington, NC)
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Broadcasting
Television
KFOR (Oklahoma City)
KFSM (Fort Smith, AR)
WHNT (Huntsville, AL)
WHO (Des Moines, IA)
WNEP (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA)
WQAD (Moline, IL)
WREG (Memphis)
WTKR (Norfolk, VA)
Radio
WQEW - AM (New York City)
WQXR - FM (New York City)
Other
Boston Red Sox (partial)
NESN (partial)
Discovery Times channel (50%)

The Democrats are not going to let McCain's actions go without notice.
Will action be taken in time?

http://youdecide08.foxnew...

Cutbacks...cutbacks...they had their chance and blew it. Subscriptions down...no going back now. Late hit pieces are just LATE and non-topical boring blather. Bye Bye NYT

Duh. Go get another 5 cups of coffee. They are the old media, silly. All they're doing now is swaying public confidence against mcinsane in order to bolster support for 'their girl'. And if you need a road map drawn out for you to figure out that hillary is 'their' girl, well...good luck.

Vote RON PAUL 2008
_____________
A major newspaper like this isn't going to publish high-visibility, easy to discredit hearsay evidence, I just can't see them doing that. Certainly they must have sound background information to back up their story -- their very reputation as a mainstream media source would be otherwise flushed away and their existence put at stake considering WHO it is they reported on. I mean the guy is unwashed crud, no doubt about that and I believe there is yet more to possibly come out as regards this background information. I sure hope so because I want to see the man discredited for what he is and GONE.

That would move RON PAUL one step closer.

I always assumed that term meant the mainstream media in general and any media that was owned /or heavily influenced by large corporate backers.

It's funny, the L.A. Times thinks it's website is new media...But it's just the online version of an old media paper. By that logic, Fox's website would also be "new media." The Daily Paul is more new media than the NY or the L.A. times as most of its content is user generated by individuals.

The one I read from The New Republic completely denounced the NYT article.

The day after the NYT article, I read Newsweek's article that showed McCain's testimony from a trial five years ago that proved McCain lied in his recent remark in which he claimed he had never talked directly to any of the lobbyists in the Iseman/Paxon scandal. In McCain's testimony five years ago, he said Paxon himself had called and talked to McCain for a while.

I don't know if you've noticed but it's the democrats turn to win. They are painting the picture and setting it up. Everyone pitches in. First they help the weakest and the worst republican candidate rise and then they slam him down. It's just the way it's supposed to go this time.

The New York Times has been around a really long time.

And what are you referring to as the "New Media?"

Can you explain your terms?