Last week, when we produced our “Pinchurian Candidate” video, we noted that New York Timesmen such as Frank Rich, had developed quite an idiosyncratic use of language; dubbing conservative Republicans in upstate New York “Stalinists” for wanting to replace a candidate who had run afoul of an incredible cross-section of the media, including the Weekly Standard, the Daily Kos and AP, with someone less tainted. Even though the Times itself had no problem with as odious a figure as Stalin while he was alive, or with more contemporary (one hesitates to dub them “modern”) totalitarian regimes such as Cuba, China, and North Vietnam.
And on Sunday, we noted that Times had decided to “Hide The Decline”, circle the wagons, and not discuss the specifics of the breaking global “warming” scandal because…
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.
…Even though the Gray Lady had no problem publishing the Pentagon Papers in the early 1970s, and a variety of secrets from the GWOT in recent years.
Flash-forward to today and over to the Founding Bloggers site, which asks, “Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To ‘STFU’?”
A few minutes ago, we received the following comment attacking Glenn Reynolds for his observation that “every promise has an expiration date” (Emphasis added in red):
“Regardless, Glenn Reynolds is correct when he says, “every promise has an expiration date.”
Say what? Didn’t you mean to say, Glenn Reynolds is taking a false cheap shot at Obama, today like every day?
What kind of idiot didn’t notice that Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan?
Did the same idiots not notice that Obama has already DOUBLED the number of troops in Afghanistan since taking office?
If you don’t know what in blazes you are talking about, then by all means, STFU, Glenn Reynolds.
Sometimes when we receive a comment or email that contains a personal attack, or unwarranted vulgarity, we run the IP address of the commenter to see where the comment might be coming from.
Imagine our surprise when the IP address for the above comment (IP: 170.149.100.10) resolved to the New York Times!
OrgName: The New York Times
OrgID: NYT-1
Address: 229 West 43rd Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10036
Country: USNetRange: 170.149.0.0 – 170.149.255.255
CIDR: 170.149.0.0/16
NetName: NYTCO
NetHandle: NET-170-149-0-0-1
Parent: NET-170-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1T.NYTIMES.COM
NameServer: NYDNS1.ABOUT.COM
NameServer: NYDNS2.ABOUT.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1994-05-18
Updated: 2008-06-03RTechHandle: ZT84-ARIN
RTechName: The New York Times
RTechPhone: +1-212-556-1234
RTechEmail: hostmaster@nytimes.comOur question… is this an intern or a staff member who is trolling blogs, sticking up for Progressive ideologues and telling Glenn Reynolds to “STFU?”
At a way to keep it real classy NYT!
As I said at the end of the “Pinchurian Candidate” video, Daniel Okrent, the Times’ first ombudsman, noted in 2004 that the Times was a liberal paper. Fair enough; but it’s the style of liberalism — a much more punitive strain than FDR, JFK, or LBJ would have presented, at least in public, that one questions, even though it’s very much in vogue at the moment, at both ends of the Northeast Corridor.
Update: If anything, the comments that Dan Riehl reports getting from the same IP address at his blog are even more refined and genteel.
The fact that people on the Times’ IP address feel free to comment on conservative websites does tend to make the “Gosh, we didn’t know about it” excuse even more flimsy than it already is, when it comes to not covering things like the O’Keefe-Giles ACORN videos and other events that don’t paint liberalism in a good light.
If they’re browsing conservative websites and commenting on the topics, they know about the topics. Which, the next time a story pops up that the Times ignores, should be a good time to start doing IP trackbacks, to see if the paper’s staff only plans to deal with the story via random and anonymous nasty comments.