"Something is seriously wrong with the New York Times ..."

[CaptFun]

Something is seriously wrong with the New York Times…

21 Christians beheaded by ISIS in Libya and it is NOT page A1 in my New York Times edition — but buried on page A6.

How could the beheading of 21 Christians not be front page?

The Islamic State, in their most recent act of savagery, beheaded 21 Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya, which (Fox News Channel Reporter) Van Susteran says she found “buried.”

The “inside story” …

nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/middleeast/islamic-state-video-beheadings-of-21-egyptian-christians.html

By its agenda a newspaper presents what is most important to its readership.

This story is news, but … is relegated to an inside page? And not Page 1 “above the fold …” < that is … the paper’s most featured news.

What WAS on page 1 above the fold? See for yourself.

nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&region=TopBar&module=HomePage-Button&pgtype=article

I counted 13 stories … some rather pedestrian … and none anywhere near as earth shaking as the ISIS beheading of Christians.

This from the supposed “newspaper of record …” for U.S. news. IMO this is beyond a political bias (which all newspapers have somewhat) … but a dereliction of duty.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Not THAT surprising. I think they also buried the Oil for Food Scandal.

Aside from fair and balanced FOX NEWS, I don’t think too many big news outlets are keen on criticizing Islam.

 

[Brianmcg321]

What would you expect from a “newspaper” that hails Bruce Jenner as a hero and Chris Kyle (American Sniper) as insane in their editorials?

 

[Neofight]

Aside from fair and balanced FOX NEWS, .

Sarcasm, right?

 

[WKW_69]

Something is seriously wrong with the New York Times…

The “inside story” …

nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/middleeast/islamic-state-video-beheadings-of-21-egyptian-christians.html

By its agenda a newspaper presents what is most important to its readership.

This story is news, but … is relegated to an inside page? And not Page 1 “above the fold …” < that is … the paper’s most featured news.

What WAS on page 1 above the fold? See for yourself.

nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&region=TopBar&module=HomePage-Button&pgtype=article

I counted 13 stories … some rather pedestrian … and none anywhere near as earth shaking as the ISIS beheading of Christians.

This from the supposed “newspaper of record …” for U.S. news. IMO this is beyond a political bias (which all newspapers have somewhat) … but a dereliction of duty.

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of people get the news online and not in the newspaper.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Page 1 is reserved for those stories Al Sharpton regards as important to the national interest.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Sarcasm, right?

:nope: :dts:

FOX NEWS goes out their way to get different people and perspectives on their network.

 

[Neofight]

:nope: :dts:

FOX NEWS goes out their way to get different people and perspectives on their network.

Again, admittedly I’m not good at this, but is “different” sarcasm?

 

[Cat]

I’ve heard a different slant on this.

The newspapers have been trying NOT to give ISIS or other terrorist groups, and also serial killers, shooters, etc.-- any front page publicity. It makes them look important to themselves. And it encourages copycats who see that they can be on the front page, too.

I think it’s good that we bury these evil people in the middle of the newspaper instead of blaring their accomplishments across the front page in large print, with pictures and lots of print. They don’t deserve the PR. It tells them that we don’t think they’re very important. I think this is the proper approach to dealing with evil people. Don’t give them any more press than is necessary to present the story.

And I agree with the poster who said that most people get their news online.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of people get the news online and not in the newspaper.

I am sure CaptFun is positively thrilled by the prospect of having someone bursting his bubble.

Besides it isn’t about where “the vast majority of people” get their news, it is about where those who surely DON’T count get there’s. Which is his point, I would think.

 

[StSentry83]

It would be interesting to do a long term study to figure out when “important” news actually gets covered and when it doesn’t. You figure they could sell the sensationalism of this heinous act by ISIS, but I guess not.

How many stories did they run during the Iraq war when… how many innocent civilians perished at the hands of American, coalition and Iraqi forces? God only knows, because they never mention it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It would be interesting to do a long term study to figure out when “important” news actually gets covered and when it doesn’t. You figure they could sell the sensationalism of this heinous act by ISIS, but I guess not.

How many stories did they run during the Iraq war when… how many innocent civilians perished at the hands of American, coalition and Iraqi forces? God only knows, because they never mention it.

Actually, they were mentioning it quite often. Maybe not so much because they cared about Iraqis (since many times died in the Oil For Food Scandal which was under-reported), but definitely to discredit and go after President George W. Bush in order to advance their progressive agenda.

 

[Neofight]

I’ve heard a different slant on this.

The newspapers have been trying NOT to give ISIS or other terrorist groups, and also serial killers, shooters, etc.-- any front page publicity. It makes them look important to themselves. And it encourages copycats who see that they can be on the front page, too.

I think it’s good that we bury these evil people in the middle of the newspaper instead of blaring their accomplishments across the front page in large print, with pictures and lots of print. They don’t deserve the PR. It tells them that we don’t think they’re very important. I think this is the proper approach to dealing with evil people. Don’t give them any more press than is necessary to present the story.

And I agree with the poster who said that most people get their news online.

This seems more plausible, however, I’m not sure all that many people get “news” online or in print anymore…But, sadly, I think what they get (and prefer) is opinions about news, because it takes less intellectual effort to analyze events and think for themselves.

 

[ctb95]

CNN is covering it

 

[StSentry83]

Actually, they were mentioning it quite often. Maybe not so much because they cared about Iraqis (since many times died in the Oil For Food Scandal which was under-reported), but definitely to discredit and go after President George W. Bush in order to advance their progressive agenda.

I suppose it’s a catch 22 then, because very few people seem to be interested in fairly evaluating the true cost in human lives that have been throw away in this war, a war which continues to this day. I remember years of Bush = Hitler posters on one side and total denials on the other, and not much else. Then the left kind of sputtered out and ever since it’s been something that no one even talks about. But there is a sane middle ground there where we can actually look at the devastation this war has caused without pushing any kind of agenda.

They didn’t make a big deal of this execution of 20+ people, but how many other massacres have been backpage news in the meantime? Seems to me they’re just not all that interested in highlighting reports on the deaths of brown people halfway across the world… Christian, Muslim, whatever.

 

[CaptFun]

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of people get the news online and not in the newspaper.

:yup: NOT my bubble at all. I agree with you.

Still, the NYT often sets the agenda for the rest of the country - especially network TV.

Also … most newspapers ARE online now … so it’s a bit of both, even if the pages are electronic and gathered together at sites like Drudge for internet perusal.

As the REAL story is terrorists butchering Christians … I may be burying this a bit myself in that the thread headline is more about the NY Times’ underplaying the story … than the STORY OF THE GHASTLY TREACHERY. mea culpa. Though perhaps some will learn of it that wouldn’t through this thread.

 

[CaptFun]

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-the-blood-of-our-christian-brothers-and-sisters-cries-out-to-be-heard/

The National Catholic Register (I read this online BTW) put the story on ITS front page … although with a less than sensational headline. Appropriate to its mission though, IMO.

Pope Francis Speaks Out:

---

‘The Blood of Our Christian Brothers and Sisters Cries Out to Be Heard’

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-the-blood-of-our-christian-brothers-and-sisters-cries-out-to-be-heard/#ixzz3Rx8JQKWr***

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis is mourning the 21 Egyptian Christians beheaded by the Islamic State, calling them martyrs that “belong to all Christians.”

“The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard,” the Pope said. “Their only words were: ‘Jesus, help me!’”

Pope Francis made these off-the-cuff remarks in his native Spanish on Sunday, one day after the release of a video from the self-proclaimed Islamic State purporting to show the grisly beheadings of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt.

“It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants,” the Holy Father continued. “They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-the-blood-of-our-christian-brothers-and-sisters-cries-out-to-be-heard/#ixzz3Rx8cHvsq

 

[mdgspencer]

I greatly admired the New York Times when I was young, back around 1960. It was very well written and full of news. But after that they became very pro-abortion and I stopped paying any attention to it at all.

 

[BarbG]

I’m not surprised at the New York Times – a couple of years ago our Jesuit high school and Jesuit university celebrated 150 years in San Francisco and had a block party – there weresigns all along our local boulevard announcing the event and thousands celebrated but not one word in our local newspaper – San Francisco Chronicle. A couple of weeks later the “gays” had their block party and the entire first section of the Chronicle was devoted to this news. At that point I stopped taking the Chronicle except once a week on Sundays – can’t help wondering if anyone else had the same idea!

 

[tabycat]

Actually, they were mentioning it quite often. Maybe not so much because they cared about Iraqis (since many times died in the Oil For Food Scandal which was under-reported), but definitely to discredit and go after President George W. Bush in order to advance their progressive agenda.

They were mentioning it not to advance their progressive agenda but because they hated Presidet George W. Bush so much; so much, they were blaming for everything they thought was going wrong on Bush for at least five or six years into Obama’s Presidentice. Just IMNSHO.