Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 11th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default New York Times


[NYT is THE paper in the U.S. It is owned by jews, and edited by jews, and many of its reporters are jews. What the NYT says is the going 'liberal' line. Here is about as biased an article as you will ever see. It represents the Party's fear of the rapidly expanding home-schooling revolution as detracting dollars and brains from Official Lies of the Jew-Controlled Central Government (ZOG). A news story about a family of feral blacks is used as a news peg to bash White selection out of a predatory, destructive, jew-rigged System.]


http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=741103&postcount=79

http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=741107&postcount=80
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Archive of White-school media critic Christopher Donovan, who covers the NYT frequently:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...-Archives.html
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Media Watch

Christopher Donovan
The Gray Wall of Silence:

What White New York Times Readers Should Know About What’s Fit To Print

Earlier, I wrote about the New York Times’ newly announced policy of censoring racially conscious reader comment on the internet and the New York Times’ Magazine’s nearly all-Jewish editorial content, and how whites are excluded from the conversation.

But the big paper itself — sometimes called “The Old Gray Lady” — has erected an impenetrable wall of silence around the vast swath of American life occupied by white people. What’s more, in this essay, you’ll get some inside information on attempts by the Times’ own staffers to breach that wall, and the results.

In a story typical for its baffling refusal to account for white people, Times reporter Sam Roberts gave us a front-page story on Nov. 17, 2007 about how Hispanic names are beginning to outnumber “Anglo,” or white, names, in America.

Beyond the statistics, reporter Roberts offered several crowing quotes from Hispanics who were tickled to be beating out the whites:

“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Roberts quoted a banker named Luis Padilla. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”

Whites — or “Anglos,” as Roberts calls them — were not quoted at all. Did a Wilson or a Taylor have a thought on being displaced by the Garcias and the Rodriguezes? Not that you saw in the New York Times. One might reasonably ask: If it’s acceptable for Hispanics to be enthusiastic about outnumbering whites, are whites correspondingly entitled to be concerned about the trend? Again: the Times isn’t asking.

The Times might have justified itself by running a story about this demographic trend without quoting any random individuals, Hispanic or white, about their feelings. But that’s not what they chose to do. They deliberately included quotes from Hispanics, thereby setting up the question about why they didn’t talk to whites in big, bold, neon letters.

Could Mr. Roberts have secured such a quote, only to have it edited out later? You won’t find out. Try telephoning him at the Times, and you will be told that he does not speak to the public. Which is odd, considering that he’s ostensibly writing about it in his capacity as a demographics reporter for the nation’s leading newspaper. But the Times’ attitude toward the public — especially the white public — is worse still.

This writer penned a short and reasonable letter to the editor complaining about this fairly obvious omission. (I know that complaints about un-run letters to the editor fall on the ears as desperate, so please bear with me for a second.) Having seen several similar letters run in some of the nation’s top newspapers, I thought this one might stand a chance, despite the fact that I am not writing from Cambridge and do not hold an ambassador post.

Unable to restrain myself, and not wanting to cross in the mail with this blog essay, I telephoned the desk to check. The woman who answered the phone returned after digging for a few minutes and said that “you may well hear from us” about my letter. I was tantalized. But when the standard period of a week passed and the letter did not run, I knew it would never. A follow-up call confirmed it.

Convinced, however, that the issue of the media’s ignoring of whites was more important than my own satisfaction at seeing a letter run, I tried contacting the public editor, Clark Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt’s position as “public editor” is more theoretical than real, because, as with reporters, he does not speak to the public. You must send an e-mail, which is almost certainly not read by Mr. Hoyt himself. While I certainly understand that open lines might make for time on the phone with lunatics, why have a position as “public editor” if that person won’t speak to the readers?

Alas, attempts to contact the public editor were fruitless. And you will almost certainly never see Mr. Hoyt address these issues in his column.

So, not only does the New York Times refuse to speak to whites in news stories about which they’re half the topic, it won’t even speak to white readers who seek to comment about that practice. I would say that it’s harder to imagine how much more thoroughly whites could be shut out, but as the essay linked to above shows, it’s even willing to censor the comments they do have that make it past the front door.

It all raises the question: what would have to happen for a New York Times reporter to speak to a white person as a member of the white race, and quote him or her? Read on: it almost happened.

About ten years ago, I had emerged from a successful challenge to a journalism internship at the Boston Globe that excluded whites. I did not pursue the internship because I was employed as a reporter elsewhere, but one reporter took notice of all this: Seth Schiesel, then covering the communications industry for the New York Times. Mr. Schiesel, who I believe is biracial, was intrigued enough by my story to invite me to lunch, at which we discussed my challenge to the internship, affirmative action, and journalism.

He told me that he was considering doing a story about my challenge, perhaps along with other whites kept from jobs by affirmative action. He also suggested that it didn’t stand a good chance of running, for several reasons, one of which was that it may have been too self-referential: The Times owns (and I think then owned) the Boston Globe, and papers are wary of covering themselves. He also hinted that he had come along as a reporter himself through the very internship I’d been denied, or a similar one, and had worked for a time on the Globe’s editorial desk. But I was in turn intrigued that a reporter from the Times would have taken notice at all.

Again, needless to say, Mr. Schiesel’s story did not see the light of day. But my encounter with him serves as a useful piece of information for white media consumers: the media’s black hole of political correctness is so powerful, almost nothing escapes. If a reporter inside goes against all odds and indulges a little curiosity about the plight of whites, it will not be “fit to print,” as the Times says.

What we do see, however, are the inevitable disasters, like the saga of Jayson Blair, a young black reporter for the Times fired for concocting stories from whole cloth. It is hard to imagine that a collection of people as well-educated and inquisitive as the staff of the New York Times doesn’t look at the Jayson Blair episode and wonder whether there isn’t something deeply wrong with the whole multiculturalism project. But no. It carries on.

In Coloring the News, a 2001 book on the devastating effects of multiculturalism on journalism, writer William McGowan’s references to the New York Times in the index go on for so long, they seem to cover half the book. Occidental Observer readers looking for detailed information on this topic would do well to take a look at this book. What’s especially interesting are the repeated instances in which, when McGowan sought to talk to journalists about these problems, they begged off — or asked for anonymity — because of the career-ending risks of saying the wrong thing. Such is our “free” press.

In a 1993 special publication of National Review called “The Decline of American Journalism,” writer Daniel Seligman recounts how an in-office “diversity” team at the New York Times had such internal divisions it had to retire to Tarrytown, NY for a two-day retreat in which members were subjected to psychological testing. What was the issue? Whether white journalists should be whipped in public — or in private?

I suspect there is one overriding reason for the New York Times’ — and the rest of the media’s — refusal to speak to white Americans as members of a group. The minute such a thing happens, whites, as a group, will be recognized as America’s newest, and biggest, interest group. This would be cataclysmic — a virtual warping of America’s political space-time continuum. With a few strokes of the keyboard, one writer will have changed the course of history.

For the Times to voluntarily reach out like this, something incredible would have to happen. It’s more likely to be forced along by overwhelming current events. The question is, how much longer can it keep whites as a group at bay?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...aySilence.html


Links in the above article:

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages. Guess which types of comments won't make the cut.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...VoxPopuli.html

Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/op...0A&oref=slogin
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Vox Populi, Verboten

by Christopher Donovan

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages. Guess which types of comments won't make the cut.

New York Times’ “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt announced in his most recent column that our paper of record will soon begin allowing reader comments to be posted on its Web pages. See Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet, Nov. 4, 2007.

Before delving in, I knew exactly The Times’ concern: racially conscious whites. Midway through the column, Hoyt confirms this by telling us who won’t be allowed to appear: “Take, for example, ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’, who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times ‘have all the displaced ILLEGALS form the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Builiding... and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront (sic) of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.”

Hoyt proudly tells readers that he personally directed that the comment be removed. Needless to say, he does not ask whether Hispanics are indeed urinating outside. Hoyt also informs us that to ensure future censorship of racially conscious comments, the Times has hired a four-person Memory Hole team to seek out and destroy any blips of white racial consciousness.

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.” It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority. The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

One might think the sentiments revealed by the Internet would cause the media to do some self-evaluation. If it really cares about fair and insightful coverage of American society, as well as reporting to its audience, it might ask whether its coverage is geared toward that. If white Americans are angry about what has happened to their country, why not cover that, even you as the journalist disagree? They might just find that their (mostly white) readers appreciate seeing their side of the story for once, instead of the incessant coverage of any and all minority complaints.

But this assumes, of course, that the mainstream media is interested in either fair coverage or maintaining readers. In fact, it is not interested in either. On racial issues, the media does not waver from a steady course of denying inherited racial differences, denying Jewish influence, extolling the supposed virtues of “diversity” and denigrating whites. The biggest story of the past 50 years is this: America had a white majority approaching 90 percent for several hundred years, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority. But that story gets no coverage. Whites are not asked how they feel about this. It prompts the question: if an entire race died in the forest and the media didn’t cover it, would it make a noise?

This trend has continued, despite a steady drop in circulation at most major papers over the years. The illegal immigrants so beloved by The New York Times are not, I am guessing, reading The New York Times.

The proper journalistic reaction to ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’ is to find out why he believes as he does, not shut him up. That an organization ostensibly dedicated to gathering information, viewpoints and trends would announce itself to be working against that very mission by censoring whites is remarkable.

The irony is lost on The Times. But we now at least have proof of how dead-set against whites it is. And with the Internet, we know that our death will make a noise — and perhaps be postponed.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...VoxPopuli.html

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 11th, 2008 at 11:07 PM.
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #5
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
Default

No wonder the readership is taking a dive. People can only swallow so much bullshit.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #6
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,632
Default

Thanks for the post of these two great columns, Alex. Chis Donovan will definitely go in my mental file as a "must-read" commentator: excellent writer and an intellect to spar easily with the juden who won't allow a voice of this timbre.

I guess it's been at least fifty or sixty years ago that Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes penned his first articles on "the historical blackout." Barnes's focus was primarily on the refusal of publishers or scholarly journals to deal with historical or political analysis that failed to live up to their tender leftist expectations. Today. Donovan details the quantum move forward of the blackout that now includes any racially conscious material on any subject if the subject concerns or involves Whites. Whites have been marked for extermination; they no longer exist except as buffoons and foils to be played off by the always meritorious "people of colour."

Perhaps the one note of hope in Donovan's otherwise all too accurate and dreary assessment of today's "journalism" is his concluding line:

"For the Times to voluntarily reach out like this, something incredible would have to happen. It’s more likely to be forced along by overwhelming current events. The question is, how much longer can it keep whites as a group at bay?"

Those events may well be nearing.

For example, the incredible "last gasp" effort, made today by the Federal Reserve Bank in concert with a number of other international central banks, whereby the general fiat currencies are to be summarily inflated by an amount equal to the estimated total of the bad debt held by the totality of the banking industry, appears at first glance to have succeeded in tricking Wall Street into belief that "peace is at hand." Perhaps,once again, the central bankers will foist yet another degree of slavery upon the slaves of their global plantation. Perhaps, once again, the worker bees will shoulder the load and happily pay off the billionaire's bad debts through the sacrifice of their own children. But perhaps not.

As none other than George Soros has observed, a fundamental aspect of the current business collapse is the use of outdated business models to support new financial products that in fact do not comport with the models chosen to support them. If the credit crunch and financial collapse are to be remedied by the infusion of a few trillions of inflated FRNs, the treatment can only be hoped to succeed if the banks in fact can get the "funds" loaned out into circulation. Now this may work, but the banks face a formidable problem: most potential "customers" for their new loans are now the same deadbeats who have effectively bankrupted them in the first place. Should the banks in fact continue to pour "funds" into the gaping maw of insolvency, it will become quickly apparent that the only source of actual "money" to accomodate this farce is the productivity of the workers - workers who actually produce. All this assumes that the Fed's new ploy will succeed.

IMHO "success" (ala' the 400+ point run-up in the DJIA this afternoon) must be very shortlived. The results of "not-success", eg. failure, will be even more readily apparent.

Then we can look for Mr. Donovan's "overwhelming current events" to move to the fore. And what will the NYT do then?
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old March 11th, 2008 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The New York Times Magazine: A Conversation Among Us Jews

By Christopher Donovan

October 8, 2007

The New York Times Magazine, the New York Times’ Sunday slick-page offering, is easily one of the higher-quality publications in America, with in-depth treatments of cutting-edge issues in medicine, science, foreign policy, politics and our sociological landscape. But as with much of America’s elite media, there is a disproportionate representation of the Jewish community, its interests and organizations. This is best illustrated by focusing not on a single story, but an entire recent issue:

From start to finish, the August 12, 2007 issue is revealing. Two of eight letters to the editor come from Laura Winkler Stein of New Jersey and Marc Rosenblatt of Brooklyn — a comparatively low number compared to past letters pages, some of which have featured two letters from writers both named “Cohen,” for instance.

In the “Questions For” feature at the beginning of the magazine by Deborah Solomon, actor Jonah Hill of the new Superbad movie, tells Ms. Solomon, “I’m a nice Jewish boy.” His bar mitvah, he relates, was “amazing” and “magical” and carried the theme “Jonah Goes Platinum.”

Prominent neocon William Safire delivers his by-now familiar “On Language” column, which critiques the intricacies of the English language.

In “The Ethicist” feature, we hear from “ethics expert” Randy Cohen, a former comedy writer, who finds it relevant to work in a reference to American slavery in his answer to a question from an American upset about Singaporean justice. Cohen in the past has enjoyed lecturing readers about the evils of “racism,” though I have not yet seen him address the ethics of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

The cover piece, on marriage counseling, is penned by one Laurie Abraham, and writer Joshua Yaffa gives an interesting article on the clarity of road signs. In what even many Jews might chuckle at for approaching parody, Paul Greenberg tells us about Alaskan salmon fishing.

The magazine’s last-page feature, “Lives”, gives us a cozy tale by Joel Schwartzberg about moving back home at age 37. It’s heavy on his Jewish identity and warm anecdotes of the Jewish family.

“So what?” you might say. Jews are smart folks and good writers. It’s no surprise they’d are disproportionately represented, especially in a New York City paper. How many whites from Iowa read The New York Times Magazine, much less write letters to its editor?

Yet it matters, on at least two levels. On one, it’s a simple sign of cultural displacement. The Saturday Evening Post, with its own reflection of white majority mores, has long been replaced. The loss of this voice, this presence, is itself significant, in the same way that many Jews find an abandoned synagogue in Poland to be significant. Yes — you see there? Our people used to be here. And now we are not. The difference is that Jews ask themselves, “and shouldn’t we return?” Whites have not, in the main, stopped to even ponder their own displacement, much less consider its implications or focus their minds on coming back.

So it’s worth pointing out that The New York Times Magazine, a part of the nation’s “newspaper of record”, has today become a virtual closed conversation among Jews on Jewish interests. The thoughts, feelings, desires and dislikes of the American majority have been “disappeared”, which is perhaps worse than mocked or pilloried.

On another level, predominant media influence matters because media influences policy. How shall we approach illegal immigration, foreign policy? The preferences of major Jewish organizations on these issues are well-known, and not coincidentally, have, for the most part, been enacted. Yet the Jewish preferences are often not those of white Americans, as can be seen from numerous public opinion surveys. Mass illegal immigration is not the preference of American whites. Our policy toward Israel and the Middle East also cries out for re-examination if the United States is to extricate itself from the current morass. So again, it matters.

The predominant influence of Jewish interests in the media simply does not represent the interests of the American majority. Facing this reality is a necessary first step.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...novan-NYT.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 AM.
Page generated in 0.08471 seconds.