The question that needs to be answered is why they decided to stop covering it. The prosecution is going to slow and there isn’t any news isn’t passing the smell test. My guess is that the emotional story of the father and the gory details of murder doesn’t present the proper PC image of moderate muslims that they strive to present. Lets see if they don’t give fuller coverage to the defense. Just as Durbin was considered back page coverage and Rove gets the page 1 treatment the sudden blackout is no suprise.

If this trial was about a Palestinian victim of a Isreali bulldozer it would be front page and the martyr buildup would be going ahead full steam. How can a trial about death and possible(I don’t want to hear the you are convicting him before the trial has begun song) monetary and emotional support of foreign terrorists by an American citizen not be big news.

The ho hum attitude about people who openly plot and plan terror in our country is exactly how 9-11 came about. When the Hart- Rudmann report came out with it’s dire warnings that proved to be true it did not get the Abu Ghraib month long front page barrage. The Media, both Parties and all citizens stuck their heads in the sand and suffered the sad fate of 9-11. Myself included.

The MSM went ballistic on the hint,later proved a lie, that gitmo guards were flushing Korans down the toilet. The resulting facts have morphed into the absurd MSM cliche of Koran abuse. Print a rumour, when the facts come out and the mistreatment is so minor that the coverage now looks completely out of proportion yet still retain the scary tag of abuse that started with the original rumour.

He may be not guilty. But the entire country needs to have a full explanation and daily coverage, whether he is guilty or innocent. If the NYT has company in it’s laziness then fine. But they call themselves the paper of record and their readers will be kept ignorant about the state of this case. Someone needs to explain why the trial for supporting a terrorist group that gets possible aid for it’s murderous plans from an American teacher is not news, vitally important news.

Please do continue to hold your breath. Seek help if you have difficulty.

You made the ellision to reinforce your half assed assertion concerning “The plain implication of your post”. RLS.com is not a news site. Arguing tu quoque ad hominem here will not gain you debating points. Read the masthead of the NYT – they are the one’s making a claim concerning “all the news”, not Roger.

The story is important and the MSM in general is not covering it well at all. It might hurt the seditionist movement.

“The New York Times, though it no longer deserves it, has long been held in high esteem by the journalistic establishment and much of the American public. When the Times abandons even the facade of fairness, respect for all journalism in America suffers.”

No agrument with the underlying premise, but I’m afraid the r-e-s-p-E-c-t train left the station long ago.

You know how it goes, great minds think alike… or so I’m told. I guess that’s why we are here…

I don’t read the print edition very carefully, so it might be buried somewhere in the paper, but it hasn’t been featured, nor do I expect it will be.

Fox should be covering it but Fox is not considered the paper of record either.

The NYT has made a point of telling anyone who will listen how special they are.

These stats (as per searches of the NYT Archive earlier this month) may help you understand Roger’s disdain for the Times.

–NYT articles/op-eds since 3/2003 whose summary, as per the NYT Archive, contains “Abu Ghraib”: 337

–NYT articles/op-eds since 3/2003 whose summary, as per the NYT Archive, contains “Zarqawi”: 19

–NYT articles/op-eds since 3/2003 whose summary, as per the NYT Archive, contains “Al Arian”: 3

We can conclude that in the eyes of the NYT’s editors, the relative importance of these news stories is as follows:

Abu G is ~17 times more important than Zarqawi Abu G is >100 times more important than Al Arian

Is this an accurate reflection of reality? Or is this merely an reflection of the Times’ market positioning strategy?

regards,

thibaud

Have a look at the comments section of this Hoystory analysis of the NYT coverage of Durbin vs. Rove…

Are NYT defenders showing up elsewhere in unusual numbers? Two in one day so far… Probably part of the Vast NYT Conspiracy.