Tag archives: New York Times

Bluefin over Babies: The Sad Priorities of the New York Times

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 5, 2010

Today the Grey Lady carries an op-ed titled, “A Chance for the Bluefin.” It begins with this sentence: “There finally might be a reprieve for the bluefin tuna of the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, which are spiraling rapidly downward toward commercial extinction.” The piece waxes eloquent about the need to protect the bluefin, an important food resource for the U.S. and much of the world.

That’s good news. But given the Times’ addictive advocacy of unrestricted access to abortion on demand (federally funded, at that), I could not help but being impressed by the unintended irony of the op-ed’s title. This year, somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million unborn children will be aborted in the United States. 1 This does not count the many who will die due to abortafacient contraceptives.

It is estimated that more than 70 percent of the abortion facilities in the United States are located in or near minority population centers. 2 The “black genocide” is real, as the abortion industry targets little ones of color long the targets of eugenicists like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, notes, “[T]he abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women.” 3

Worldwide, approximately 42 million unborn children will be killed in utero this year, many of them due to the largesse of the United States (the Obama Administration’s funding of international “family planning” groups that provide abortions to women in the developing world). 4 Although the Times warns against waking up one day and discovering there are no tuna left to fish, protecting those little lives far outweighs protecting tuna. As Jesus said to His disciples, You are far more valuable than many sparrows (Matthew 10:31). He might have added, and than many fish.

I’m glad the bluefin might be saved. I like a good tuna salad sandwich as much as the next guy. But I long for the day when as much moral urgency will be given the preservation of the unborn as the New York Times has today given to the continued sustenance of a fish.

1 http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

2 http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html

3 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

4 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html

Will Obama Bail Out Gray Ladies of the Press?

by Robert Morrison

September 24, 2009

I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding.

Those were President Obamas words in an interview with editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade. The President was explaining his openness to a federal bailout of struggling big-city daily newspapers. For that reason, Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) have introduced S. 673, their so-called Newspaper Revitalization Act.

These two very liberal senators should have acted even sooner. They should have sponsored the Manual Typewriter Preservation Act. You see, the computer revolution put great pressure on Royal, Underwood, and Olivetti. Those companies represented thousands of jobs. We cant just let the free market run rampant. Save typewriter ribbons! Save white-out! Save carbon paper! Theres no telling how much damage these new-fangled computers might do.

The President is concerned that the Internet will not provide the kind of fact-checking and balance that was once provided for us by, say, the New York Times. Remember Jason Blair? In firing the 27-year old reporter, the Gray Lady had to confess: [He] committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events in recent months, an investigation by Times journalists has found. The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.

Or what about the care taken by Dan Rather of CBS News? Shall we recall Rathers careful fact-checking in 2004 of the letters purportedly written by 1/Lt. George W. Bushs commanding officer in 1972 and 1973? Those letters, it was quickly revealed, were typed in a Microsoft Word computer typeface. This was most interesting, since Word hadnt even been invented in 1973.

It was the blogosphere that provided the fact-checking that exposed Dan Rathers trafficking in clearly demonstrated forgeries. It was intrepid bloggers who put a stop to Dan Rathers long-running career in gonzo journalism.

Dan Rather was typical of the liberal journalists who reigned unchallenged on the airwaves for decades until Ronald Reagans FCC appointees in 1987 abolished the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Id prefer to call it the Furnace Doctrine, since thats where it consigned our First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press. After that, radio talkers rose up to challenge the liberal medias monopoly. The Internet quickly followed. Then, along came FOX.

Obviously, President Obama would prefer town hall meetings where 9-year olds read scripted questions. Real town hall meetings do sometimes get rowdy. So do tea parties.

And so does a truly free press.

If someone today alleges that some of the 53 government bureaucracies to be established by ObamaCare are death panels, there are many voices prepared to debate that, voices left and right. Isnt this vigorous debate preferable for a free people to federal government bailouts? These newspapers are declining because their readers have either fled their decaying cities or have opted instead for Internet sites and talk radio.

Presidents have historically been unhappy with negative coverage in the press. President George Washington was enraged by that rascal Freneau, a caustic anti-Washington propagandist who was secretly on the payroll of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. John Adams actually had opposition editors imprisoned under the Alien & Sedition Acts. Lincoln closed down a number of newspapers he charged were inciting rebellion. In modern times, JFK famously threw across the Oval Office a crumpled up editorial page of the Herald Tribune.

But none of these Presidents past actually tried to bail out failing newspapers. They had too much respect for a free press, free markets and the free exchange of ideas, and for the American people, whose resources should not be employed by the federal government to prop-up industries that, due to innovation and creativity of our fellow citizens, are less and less needed as means of communication.

We dont need another industry bailout. If we bail out failing newspapers, whats next, a government bailout of MSNBC? This bailout would result inevitably in a government-controlled press. We dont need President Obama to issue us our mutual understandings.

You may have noticed: I wrote this without capital letters and without exclamation points. See? No shouting at all.

  • Page 2 of 2
  • 1
  • 2