tee-heeeeeee!

Don't worry, they've got that $49.95 subscription fee for on-line op-ed content. The mega-bucks outta start rolling in any... day... now...

Yup. Just wait till THAT kicks in. They'll be SWIMMING in dough.

Maybe if they were just a little more leftist, the subs would start rolling in...

The proletariat must rise up and STRIKE these vicious capitalist exploiters.

500 lives destroyed
500 more homeless living on the streets
500 fewer speakers of truth to power who can produce and distribute my speaking truth to power

Its all the joooos fault. Schulzberger needs a new car, so he'll ruin 500 lives to get it.

E&P piece

an expected 45 newsroom positions at The New York Times newspaper and 35 at The Boston Globe.

They promised this would not impact the quality of the paper's journalism.

Somehow, someway, The Rove© is responsible for this.

wait, doesnt the NYT know that they're supposed to oppose evil things like capitalism, not succumb not them?

I laughed when I heard that the NYT was moving Krugman et. al. behind the for-pay firewall. Kruggie was probably getting tired of being punked by Donald Luskin all the time. Now Herr Doktorprofessor can preach to his leftist hallelujah chorus all he wants, and they'll not only lap up his drool but pay for the privilege.

500 pink-slipped pinkos equals 1350 homeless, if they are average grunts (2.7 per family).

And Tony beat me to it, but it seems to me the quality should improve if they're getting rid of 80 in the newsrooms alone.

'Course, they could all create resumes like they create their stories, and then every news room in Amerika would be breaking down their doors to get them to work.

This screams parody post of of a NYT employee's resmue. Or a Top Ten list. Or something. Allah, help him out.

I suppose Krugman or Dowd won't be among the 500.

Nah, but their ombudsman is toast.

Well that's it. See if I ever invite THEM to a Communist Youth Brigade party again.

Seriously, if you all are just now figuring out that the press is corporate-owned... where have you been?

Which paper printed the Ahmed Chalabi line about Iraqi WMD though Judy Miller?

NYT. They prostituted themselves upside-down and sideways to promote the war lies.

That should be enough to figure it out, right there.

They prostituted themselves upside-down and sideways to promote the war lies.

One-off oversight, soon corrected.

Now they're back to pitching leftist lies.

Leftists are the greediest capitalists BTW.

Curiously, Sulsberger says they're being "tested".

I rather think they're being punished.

That should be enough to figure it out, right there.

Ayup. When someone claims that the NYT is carrying too much water for Bush, you don't have to waste any more time listening to them.

That should be enough to figure it out, right there.

Yup. It's almost enough to make me miss Coop.

Hey, tubino. I don't get what you're alleging. Are you suggesting that Ahmed Chalabi somehow paid Judy Miller or the NYT enormous sums of money to print the WMD stuff (hence "prostituted") and that this somehow increased profits for the NYT as a corporation? Seriously, I don't get it. Did Gail Collins say, "Well, we could be the good guys and try to keep selling these marginal peace truths, but since we're a corporation and these war lies are so much more profitable, we have an obligation to our shareholders to switch our strategy to moving more war lie product"?

If you are going to try to post a zinger on a thread, it has to be at least somewhat comprehensible.

is he the one that kept saying "DISMISSED"?

I never got enough of that

Yup, that's Coop.

Where are you, Coop?

Dismissed.

Late getting back here, but caspera asked, "Are you suggesting that Ahmed Chalabi somehow paid Judy Miller or the NYT enormous sums of money to print the WMD stuff (hence "prostituted") and that this somehow increased profits for the NYT as a corporation? Seriously, I don't get it. Did Gail Collins say, "Well, we could be the good guys and try to keep selling these marginal peace truths, but since we're a corporation and these war lies are so much more profitable, we have an obligation to our shareholders to switch our strategy to moving more war lie product"?"

Good questions. I don't think there's a money quid-pro-quo, so maybe it could be called LOVE and not prostitution. But it happened, and I do not believe anyone could name another major daily that did for Bush's WMD BS what Judith Miller's columns did. I read those each day they came out, and I was astounded. Sourcing was non-existent in the journalistic sense, but it was an open secret that Judy was playing stenographer for the self-interested gang that wanted a piece of Iraq. Judy got scoops, Chalabi got his war. What did NYT get, other than a blackeye for promoting the Bush agenda?

Who am I kidding -- what black eye? More attention was paid to Dan Rather, by a couple orders of magnitude. The NYT published a mealy-mouthed apology for selling a war that is disastrous for most Iraqis, and a loser for all but a few US citizens.

I think it's really kind of simple. Everyone learns how to please the boss. The ultimate bosses (those controlling the corporations that own MSM) share the interests of those who are gaining from this rotten deal.

The NYT is a fairly egregious example, but MSM is full of the same. The resulting cognitive dissonance is getting very loud now, and people who have been believing that the situation in Iraq is better than the MSM portrays, try to come to grips with the fact that the coalition still doesn't control the road from Baghdad to the airport, and now Iraqi police are shooting at Brits in Basra. How can they reconcile reality with their belief system?

From link above:
Finally, consider Iraq's reconstruction, which also remains firmly under U.S. control. One of Bremer's orders denied the Iraqi government the ability to give preference to Iraqis in the reconstruction effort. Instead, more than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts totaling more than $50 billion, more than twice the GDP of Iraq. Halliburton has the largest contract, worth more than $11 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies are earning more than $1.5 billion each.

These are facts, but I've talked to plenty of people who can believe greed motivated the oil-for-food scandal, yet can't believe the same motivations play a role here.

Track down the links in this story for another view.