John Edwards: New York Times State of Mind

New York Times John Edwards Coverage:
Let Sleeping Dog Lie


Our Watchdog Press


Exhibiting that "New York Times state of mind" that has characterized the paper's (lack of) investigative effort in the Edwards story, Times' columnists, David Brooks and Gail Collins, argue that, after the Times' 11-day coverage of the affair, the John Edwards affair is ready to "recede[s] into history".

From State of Affairs

Gail Collins:David, we’re about to embark on back-to-back conventions, so let’s find something else to talk about besides the presidential race. Before the John Edwards affair recedes into history, should we discuss Lessons Learned?

Lessons Learned?

One of the lessons DBKP has learned thus far: Don't depend on the New York Times to break anything of consequence on politically-sensitive news that affects Dem pols. Subtract from the Times' John Edwards' coverage the stories:
A. the Times stole from bloggers;
B. the Times covers itself for not covering the Edwards story; and,
C. that either furiously spun why it didn't investigate Edwards or conversational pieces like the Collins-Brooks gabfest.

What's left? Not much.

If forced, The NYT may comment only as much as is necessary on the National Enquirer's investigative work--before it assigns another reporter on its possible story about Edwards' possible past dalliance with a Duke co-ed.

Collins continues to echo the "Edwards scandal was a sex story" MSM meme--demonstrating that the Times is perfectly willing to let others beat it to the bigger story of the cover-up and the money trails that even now have our "crack research department" reaching for the Dramamine.

I hope the mainstream media doesn’t decide that this means they should commit their limited investigative resources to trailing every allegation of political adultery The National Enquirer uncovers. We all have specialties in life — I’m good with letting The National Enquirer folks hang onto their niche.

Could Collins be referring to the niche known as "news"?

As voters, our interest in which big names are sleeping around is real but limited. One limit is that you don’t torture also-rans. If Edwards had ever had a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee, this would have been a huge matter. He’d made his marriage a major part of his campaign — by the end, it was really the main thing he had going. Imagine the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he had the nomination locked up.

"Imagine the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he had the nomination locked up."

Actually, the REAL mental exercise would be imagining the chaos right now in the Times' editorial office. How would they go about reporting on a Dem nominee's scandal and cover-up that they had never written about?

Collins and the Times still don't get it: this was an affair--big deal. But it was, and is, an elaborate cover-up undertaken at precisely the time when the Times, and others in the MSM, failed to perform their traditional duties vetting and investigating candidates running for president.

Collins would have been spared the mental gymnastics of "the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he [Edwards] had the nomination locked up", if the Times had assigned a mail room worker to do even the most elementary investigation on a home PC.

Regardless of their opinions of the National Enquirer, the tabloid presented the MSM with a gift-wrapped box of facts to check out in December on John Edwards, when he was very much in the running for the Democratic nomination.

What's more important than what media watchdogs, Gail Collins or DBKP think about the Times, are what readers, advertisers and stock buyers think about the decrepit Grey Lady. From a few months ago;

THE New York Times once epitomised all that was great about American newspapers; now it symbolises its industry’s deep malaise. The Grey Lady’s circulation is tumbling, down another 3.9% in the latest data from America’s Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC). Its advertising revenues are down, too (12.5% lower in March than a year earlier), as is the share price of its owner, the New York Times Company, up from its January low but still over 20% below what it was last July. On Tuesday April 29th Standard & Poor’s cut the firm’s debt rating to one notch above junk.

At the company’s annual meeting a week earlier, its embattled publisher, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, attempted to quash rumours that his family is preparing to jettison the firm it has owned since 1896. Carnage is expected soon as dozens of what were once the safest jobs in journalism are axed, since too few of the staff have accepted a generous offer of voluntary redundancy.

Note to Colins, et.al.:
New York Times stock price (Aug 22 2008) - $13.21, down from the $23.65 of a year ago.

Might be time for the New York Times to change that "All the News That our Hopeless Editorial Staff Decides is Fit to Print" slogan to something a little catchier.

Like maybe, "We read the Enquirer, too"?


by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file

John Edwards Scandal: NY Times is "Gray Shady Lady"?

"Deceiver was steadily working this story long before the Times printed one word. All it takes is a one-sentence credit to avoid these things. Play fair."




New York Times' top researcher?

Will the New York Times be known the "Gray Shady Lady" before it becomes the "Gray Bag Lady"?

Today, Gawker takes notice of a disturbing rip-off: [Times Takes Edwards Scandal Info From Blogger Without Credit]

Yesterday the New York Times ran a story about the John Edwards affair, detailing the circumstances behind the meeting of Edwards and Rielle Hunter in a Beverly Hills hotel that ended up getting the ex-VP candidate caught by the National Enquirer. The story includes various bits of background info on Bob McGovern, a new-age friend of Hunter who set up the meeting. Just about all of that background appears to have been taken from a post more than a week earlier on Deceiver.com—although the Times didn't credit them at all. That's stealing.

The Mainstream Media has been getting ripped--well, by everyone, but the blogosphere, in particular--for not covering the John Edwards scandal until August 8, when it went from "it's not news" to "Hey, it's 24/7 news".

Now, the MSM is ripping off the bloggers, who along with the National Enquirer, were the only ones to cover the John Edwards scandal for months.

Yesterday, DBKP wrote about the theft of material from both here and website, Deceiver, by the MSM, and one of the reasons behind it.[Mainstream Media Uses Blogosphere as Unpaid Research Wing in Edwards Scandal - UPDATED]

Of course, the MSM wouldn’t have had to resort to these shady practices if just one of the members of their clubby community had investigated allegations surrounding John Edwards nine months ago: but that would’ve put a dent in the invitations to the wine-and-cheese parties.

The only investigation came from the National Enquirer and a few bloggers. But, you wouldn’t know it if you watched the Big Media frenzy of this past weekend. Some stories didn’t even mention the National Enquirer by name–it became an unnamed “tabloid”.

Gawker concludes it piece comparing the Times and Deceiver pieces:

"Deceiver was steadily working this story long before the Times printed one word. All it takes is a one-sentence credit to avoid these things. Play fair."

NOTE: If the MSM had taken Gawker's advice to "play fair" prior to August 8, they'd have no reason to steal now, trying to play catch-up.

by Mondoreb
dbkp file image

Bill O'Reilly: Tap Dancing Around Alleged Obama Scandal?

While the New York Times continues to falter and sink...






We're not the only ones with a sharp eye. Yesterday a video was posted on Youtube by someone who believes they heard Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow on The O'Reilly Factor allude to the still unsubstantiated scandal of illegal drugs and gay sex surrounding Senator Barack Obama.






O'Reilly and Snow were discussing the story put out by the New York Times which alluded to an affair between the top Republican candidate for President, Senator John McCain, and one cute blond lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.

Excerpts from the show's transcripts:

SNOW: But it seems that Bill Keller, the executive editor, thought this was a sloppy piece of work and kept resisting it. There was a lot of pressure out of the Washington bureau. "Hey, we've got something saucy, boss." And whether Bill Keller, for whatever reason, knuckled under and figured that this is the way to sort of get along, I don't know.

But having been in journalism for nearly 30 years, I've got to tell you, no editor is going to look at something like that and say that it measures up, because it doesn't. It doesn't even measure up in terms of gossip.

Reporting more on the level of the gossip rag, the National Enquirer, the Times piece on McCain was indeed, sloppy, and guilty of printing a story full of unsubstantiated gossip and innuendo, the foundation of the story built on the quicksand of "unnamed" sources.

O'REILLY: Well, here's the real tragedy, and this is an American tragedy, because this is stuff that's been going on for far too long. There isn't an accusation that McCain broke any law. There isn't an accusation that he actually had an affair with a woman. They don't say he did. Both parties deny that. OK?

All they do in The New York Times article is insinuate, is suggest, based on no hard evidence.

Snow and O'Reilly go on to discuss the pattern of journalistic misbehavior by the once venerable New York Times and other organizations whose readership is in decline:

SNOW: Look, I also think that there is a problem right now in journalism. Everybody's trying to get on air as rapidly as possible with something as sensational as possible. This is why we get all of these Britney Spears stories.

But the fact is that this is a presidential campaign. People are sick of this stuff. They're sick of the kind of cannibalism that goes on in Washington. They're sick of sloppy smears. What they like is somebody who's actually talking about stuff.

O'REILLY: See, I disagree with you there.

SNOW: No.

O'REILLY: There has been a longstanding rumor, and you know it, about a Democratic, powerful Democratic person in this country, longstanding, been around, people have looked at it, never reported by anyone, never mentioned by anyone. Easily done in the same way The New York Times did it. I could do it. I could do it. I could do it tomorrow, anonymous sources told me this individual in America, again, a prominent Democrat... Source - FOXNews

Is O'Reilly alluding to the Obama story swirling around the blogs, of a gay man who is accusing the squeaky clean Senator of two incidents of illegal drug use and oral sex? The story no one in the MSM dare not investigate nor dare not speak of?

While the MSM turns its collective noses up at verifying whether the Obama story is true the Times made the decision to print the hit piece on McCain. This isn't the first nor will it be the last time people will be outraged over the shenanigans over at the Times. Howls of protest they're used to, but not a steady decline in readership and advertising, the cash cow that keeps them going.

We agree with Snow and O'Reilly. The Times has failed Journalism's most basic tenets, reliable sources, facts back by hard evidence. In other words, after all these years of leaning hard to the Left, the Times finally fell into the realm of "slacker" journalism, or even lower, a "rag" mag.

But there's that other story sitting in the background, on another candidate running for President, a very popular Democrat candidate. The story concerns alleged illegal drug use and gay sex, also "unsubstantiated" and no "hard evidence" other than the man who claims he was a participant back in 1999.

The story hidden within the story is why the Times went with the "hit" piece on McCain and continues to ignore the story on the Democrat front-runner, Barack Obama.

We've attempted to get an interview from Larry Sinclair, the man at the center of the drug and sex allegations aimed at Obama.

We're not sure what's going on over at the Times, if reality has been supplanted by a Liberal Ship of Fools intent upon steering the course of American politics, while their ship founders and slowly sinks into the Journalistic Sargasso Sea.

By LBG

Image - Ship of Fools
Source - Obama: Gay Man Threatened Over Sex and Drug Claims
Source - Youtube - Obama's Limo Sex and Drug Party



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Source - Youtube

John McCain: New Female Lobbyist Scandal?

New York Times says "Waves of Anxiety"
Swept Through McCain Camp

A new scandal for the McCain campaign?

And even though The New York Times doesn't have much credibility in the news or editorial departments, we're going to comment on it.

Lobbyist Vicki Iseman is caught up in a scandal involving Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Both McCain and Iseman, naturally enough, have denied having any romantic relationship.



John McCain

From the NY Times, a member in good standing of the Mainstream Media wing of the Democratic National Committee:

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself - instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

We'll start by saying that any regular readers knows that there's no love lost between DBKP and John McCain.

McCain is not a conservative, but his backers continually chastise conservatives for not kowtowing to the "Straight Talker".

But, our intense disdain for the New York Times and their "reportage" is legendary.

The fact that this story showed up in the Times reveals more about the NY Times than John McCain.

The POS Times, who remained deaf and dumb and blind during, after and through the present-day concerning the John Edwards Love Child scandal and, more recently, the Larry Sinclair allegations about Barack Obama, finally have found some unnamed sources they deem worthy to report on.

So, when considering how much weight to give to this story, remember the source.

Back on December 21, DBKP reported on an unnamed female Telecom lobbyist that McCain had shown special favors to.
"John McCain and Lobbyists: Not Exactly News"

We wrote four or five stories on McCain's lobbyists relationships, quashed stories and such. But we wrote over 25 stories on the tawdry affair and subsequent cover-up of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

Where was the august NY Times then?

For that matter, where is the Times now?

Not one drop of ink was spilled on the Time's pages about that affair, which is still on-going.

The Times is also silent on the Larry Sinclair allegations and federal lawsuit concerning Barack Obama.

Of course, McCain has an "R" beside his name, while Obama and Edwards have the "Time's Anointed" "D" besides their's.

So our skepticism concerning the NY Time's John McCain story is well-deserved.

Until the Times shows the same balance in reporting unnamed allegations, they're still the same tired, mistrusted New York Times.

News that's fit for the supermarket checkout line--sometimes--and that's about it.

by Mondoreb
image: Alaska Report
Source: NYTimes
* Vicki Iseman in John McCain Scandal



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

New Study Sheds Light on Global Warming: Bad New for the New York Times, Good News for Planet Earth

New study details how simple changes at New York Times
could help save planet Earth

A few changes could go a long way toward reducing climate change a new study released Friday showed. While it's good news for Planet Earth, it may be bad news for Editorial writers at the New York Times.

The United States could shave as much as 27 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations, according to a new report.

DeRhode Report on Reducing Greenhouse Gases

A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries, individual consumers, and long-suffering readers of the New York Times the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change.

But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at DeRhode & Company, the consulting firm.

The report said the country was brimming with “negative cost opportunities” — potential changes in the reading, viewing and discussion of newspapers editorial policies, for example, that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the emissions of NY Times Editorial Staff meetings, even as they save money.

“These types of savings have been around for 20 years,” said Dr. Juan Morefor DeRhode, a director of the study. But he said they still face tremendous barriers.

"We've charted enormous potential resistance to any suggestion that the Times' writers take basic science courses to better acquaint themselves with what they are writing about."

But DeRhode said that the stakes are "so high it makes it all worth pursuing."

Another of the study's authors, Dr. Getta Klough, echoed DeRhode.

"The emissions from the editorial staff at NY Times, CNN, MSNBC and USA Today alone, well--they were off the chart. If these could somehow be limited, it would go a long way toward solving many of the problems of perception about climate change."

The study was released Friday in Washington, D.C. and was conducted by DeRhode and Company for DBKP.

Its release comes a week before a United Nations climate conference is to convene in Bali, and as Congress approaches a vote on proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

by Mondoreb
[image:.blog.thesietch]
Sources:
Study Details How U.S. Could Cut 28% of Greenhouse Gases
DeRhode and Company Study



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Ron Paul and the Internet: Who's Found Who?

“It’s kind of sad, but the money is what has given us credibility, not the authenticity of the ideas.”
--Ron Paul

The New York Times looks at the Internet and Ron Paul and reports it straight--rare stuff for the Times. It's a "make up your own mind about the Internet and Ron Paul" story in the mainstream media.

The interesting premise: Ron Paul's campaign didn't harness the Internet. It was the other way around: Internet users found Ron Paul and took his campaign on a ride.

More on this interesting look at the Internet phenomenon known as Ron Paul, By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and LESLIE WAYNE at The New York Times:

From posting video on YouTube to enlisting friends through Facebook, all of the presidential candidates are looking for ways to harness the Internet. In the case of Ron Paul, the Internet has harnessed him.

If his campaign had taken place in the pre-Internet era, it might have gone the way of his 1988 Libertarian campaign for president, as a footnote to history. But because of the Internet’s low-cost ability to connect grass-roots supporters with one another — in this case, largely iconoclastic white men — Mr. Paul’s once-solo quest has taken on a life of its own. It is evolving from a figment of cyberspace into a traditional campaign, with yard signs, direct mail and old-fashioned rallies, like one here on Saturday attended by a few thousand people under cold, gray skies. Mr. Paul said it was his biggest rally so far. He said it proved his campaign was more than “a few spammers” and called it a “gigantic opportunity” to establish credibility.

How much the Paul campaign had snowballed on the Internet became evident last week when supporters independent of the campaign raised $4 million online and an additional $200,000 over the phone in a single day, a record among this year’s Republican candidates. There is even talk that Mr. Paul could influence the primary in New Hampshire, where he could draw votes from Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is trying to revive the independent persona that helped him win the state’s primary in 2000.

The story goes on and is interesting. It's not often we agree with the NYT, but this is a nice job.

The Paul supporters should be happy that a mainstream media outlet reported their man and the Internet happenings surrounding him in a straightforward manner.

This story is reported as a story ought to be: presenting the facts and letting the reader make up his/her own mind. It's a rare item at the Times when the subject is politics.

The rule in many places is: if it's in the Times, it's in the trash. Good for a laugh and a thumbnail of what the world looks like while wearing moonboots.

It's not that the New York Times couldn't be a good newspaper. It's that it tries so hard not to be one. This is an example of what the Times could be if it only would play it straight--instead of injecting its liberal/Leftist worldview into every news story it publishes.

by Mondoreb



Back to Front Page.

Bob Herbert: Economic Knowledge? What Economic Knowledge?

Bob Herbert says, "If it looks like a recession and feels like a recession ..."

To which anyone outside the cozy idealogical confines of the New York Times might be forced to take him by his shoulders and gently shake the man from his dreamy trance-like state. Herbert, is positively Cayce-esque in his ability to pull back the curtains of financial uncertainty, all while sitting in his office.

Nothing will reduce a thinking man to uncontrollable laughter faster than a journalist spouting economics. Thus, Herbert's "Recession? What Recesssion?" is a masterpiece of the genre.

“We have an economy that is based on increased debt,” said Mr. Hinchey. “The national debt is now slightly above $9 trillion, and ordinary working people are finding that they have to borrow more and more to maintain their standard of living."

“The average now is that people are spending close to 10 percent more than they earn every month. Obviously, that can’t be sustained.”

And the grand finale.

The chickens of our denial are coming home to roost with a vengeance. Meanwhile, the elites are scouring the landscape for signs of a recession.

Using such well-known economic terms as "gross domestic product" and "Consumer Price Index", Herbert continues his financial doomsday show, and one imagines the entire New York Times newsroom waving their lighters in the air at the finish.

"Look everybody! Bobby's gonna do his economics thing! Gather round!"

Herbert is as accurate a seer on the economy as he is on the war in Iraq and most other issues. When "Bush?" is the question, Bob's favorite answering mood is despair.

Who knows? Herbert's bound to get one right some day. This one could be it. If he is right, the New York Times will most likely have a party.

Then, maybe Bob Herbert can do his "Economic Wizard" routine again.

by Mondoreb




Back to Front Page.

W.M.D. in Iran? U.S.A.Take Action? M.D. in N.Y.T. Writes About E.D.C.? Q.E.D. To the Max

[photo:DBKP file photo]
by Mondoreb

This is getting to be too much like the synapses of a lab rat clicking. Mo Dowd needs to come up with a column idea, Evil Dick Cheney is the subject, then we respond to it. Our keyboard and Dowd's both need a Pavlovian drool shield.

The latest on Evil Dick Cheney, related as Dowd channels the spirit of Scarlett O'Hara, gazing skyward and breathlessly intoning "tomorrow is another day", in the New York Times:

RUSSERT: First you threatened to take action if Iran built a nuclear weapon. Now you’re threatening to take action if Iran knows how to build a nuclear weapon. What’s next? You threaten to take action if Ahmadinejad dresses up as a nuclear weapon for Halloween?

CHENEY: Well, the difficulty here is, each time he has rejected what he was called upon to do by the international community. I’m not sure now, no matter what he says, that anyone would believe him. He’s pretending he doesn’t have W.M.D., just like Saddam.

And then the big finish.

RUSSERT: It’s so close to the next election, Mr. Vice President, shouldn’t you just keep on the diplomatic track and let the next president make this decision?

CHENEY: You really want Rudy Giuliani playing with the nuclear button, Tim? Now, that’s insane.

The above excerpt is representative of the whole. Evil Dick Cheney and his Malicious Minions are beating on the war drums and dancing madly around a campfire somewhere in Washington. All the while, poor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is off giving nuclear alms to widows.

And in New York, Mo Dowd is thinking, "Doesn't anyone realize the danger? I must warn them! Quick Lassie! Go get Timmy!" This episode's Guest Star: Rudy Giuliani as "The Nuclear Madman"!

Nuclear Arms in Iran? The U.S. Take Action? Maureen takes on Evil Dick Cheney?

Q.E.D. to the max.

Back to Front Page.

A Slither Through The Hate-Filled World of Tedrall

Yesterday, Little Green Footballs pointed out the latest offering from the twisted little cartoonist known as Ted Rall. After looking at some of Rall's other hate-filled scribblings, it might be good to offer a tour. So here's a slick slither through the Hate-Filled World of Tedrall:

Ted Rall on October 24:

When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans said he should be afraid to speak at military bases. That should go double for Bush. The next he shows up to use you as a TV prop, soldiers and fellow Americans, boo the crap out of him. What's the worst he can do? Kill you?

The cartoon that got everyone upset:
[click on cartoons to enlarge them.]

Perhaps, though it's hard to imagine why, a perfectly intelligent person might have joined the military early in the Bush Administration. Four years into Iraq and six years into the meatgrinder of Afghanistan, however, it's fair to say that only a less than brilliant person would sign away his life for, literally, nothing. (Save your e-mails, righties: citing "patriotism" as a reason to enlist doesn't work. French patriots didn't fight for the Vichy regime during World War II. They joined the resistance. A patriot would have nothing to do with the military while the White House is occupied by an illegitimate coup leader.)

Anyway, if the carnage continues in Iraq for another 500 years, it stands to reason that the average I.Q. of those who remain behind will increase. Thus this cartoon...

The smiley face is a nice touch, for someone making money off the deaths of soldiers. Maybe he's auditioning for Official Cartoonist of Code Pink? Chicago Ray takes issue with Mr. Tedrall.

This human shitbag really takes free speech to it's limits with these disgusting and near treasonous during wartime kiddie scribbles, damning the very people that give that p***y the right to draw what he draws. He also pens a paid column excerpted below that spits out the same anti military and general America hating garbage in word form, including one yesterday that is nearly the most despicable thing I've read throughout the entire war without a doubt.

Chicago Ray is just getting warmed up.

Yesterday's column is just another hate filled left loon statement spitting and pissing on the soldiers that this worm wouldn't have the guts to get near in real life nor anyone like myself for that matter while spewing this drivel out loud, his perverted way of supporting them is his mantra. Lest he'd get his dimunitive ass whipped, just like he obviously did all through his entire life judging by his inner hatred for people who unlike himself are stronger than he filled with character and strength, just like these soldiers that protect this country and the people within it including scum like himself day in and out without question 24 /7 - 365.

Again, providing him along with the rest of us the very freedom that he abuses hiding behind the first amendment to say and write the vile things that he does and get paid for it no less while he's at it. So in other words and ironically not only does that scrawny little shitbag owe his freedoms to those very soldiers he despises, but the very food he eats, clothing he wears and the air he breathes.

in other words his entire pathetic useless existence is provided courtesy the sacrifice and deaths of US soldiers of today and yesterday that he claims to be fighting for by his twisted opposition to them following their commander in chief's orders fighting a war against terrorism and terror.

Tedrall got fired from the New York Times in March 2004. How nutbaggish do you have to be get fired from the Times? Pretty whacked, one would be tempted to answer. Tedrall, while mocking people who suit up and die for their country, really is a little girl when his own little piggies are getting stepped on.

After the Times canceled his cartoonish cartoons, he wrote and whined and complained and begged the three guys who read him to write letters. For those who have a bathos Jones, the whole mawkish story as related by Tedrall, can be perused. A sample (from March 9, 2004):

Right-wing bloggers are at it again. It wasn't enough to get my cartoons pulled from The New York Times--now they say my "whining" about it is unseemly. Of course, the warbloggers like to keep this tactic to themselves, they're so damned good at it. But to hell with that.

If you're tired of losing every cultural and political battle, then please join me in mimicking the relentlessness of the right. Write to the Times to let them know how you feel about them pulling my cartoons in response (solely, as they admit) due to Republican pressure:

If one is going to go in for hate, it's the hate of giving Tedrall's website more attention than it would ever get otherwise. So let's give a little attention to Cox & Forkum. The conservative cartoonists took a look at their Tedrall below.
The cartoon that attracted their attention follows. Notice his use of "Afghan resistance" instead of the "Taliban".

Just so you think that Tedrall's thoughts never turn to love, that's just not true. We leave this last cartoon as evidence.
Tedrall's work can be viewed by Borat & buddies in central Asia these days. One place his work is featured is Turkmenistan. If it's any consolation, at least these little love notes won't be seen by New York Times' readers.

Tedrall's latest from Central Asia:
It's just one big, steady climb up the career ladder for Tedrall.

by Mondoreb

Back to Front Page.