New York Times, Toilet Paper of Record

The NY Times was wrong on Communist Russia, providing cover as "Uncle Joe" Stalin murdered millions. They were wrong on the intentions of rebel leader Fidel Castro, claiming he was not a communist. This allowed US support and money to flow to his movement that knocked over Fulgencio Batista, replacing one dictator with another.

The NY Times was wrong to publish intelligence information, their political coverage is ridiculously left-leaning, and their economic reporting is useless garbage.

Submitted for your approval: Two real-life examples why this left-leaning dung heap of ink and paper should be held suspect in all instances

EXAMPLE 1: Unemployment reporting under President George H.W. Bush in 1992 vs. Today for Times hero and love interest President Obama, courtesy of Byron York. First, Last week's coverage of the Obama economy:

The lead story, "Job Losses Slow, Signaling Momentum for a Recovery," reporting a decline in the unemployment rate from 9.5 percent in June to 9.4 percent in July, begins by declaring that, "The most heartening employment report since last summer suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way -- and perhaps gathering steam."

"Employers are no longer in a panic," one expert tells the Times.

Now, compare it with this Bush-bashing, in the midst of his 1992 reelection campaign:

"Jobless Rate Dips a Notch to 7.7% in Mixed Showing," was the front-page headline of the August 8, 1992 Times. "The nation's jobless rate improved marginally last month, edging down to 7.7 percent from 7.8 percent," the Times reported. "But the improvement was not enough to signal a stronger economic recovery or to help President Bush as he heads into the Republican National Convention."

EXAMPLE #2: Reportage on the APA's statement on "Gay Reparative Therapy"

From NYT-AP:

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

In a resolution adopted by the association’s governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.

From The Wall Street Journal:

According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.

But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

Somebody is twisting the facts. Here's the part of the APA press release that deals with the issue:

As part of its report, the task force identified that some clients seeking to change their sexual orientation may be in distress because of a conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The task force recommended that licensed mental health care providers treating such clients help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client's religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life."

"In other words," Glassgold said, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."

There's no "repudiation" there. Is it any wonder this so-called "news" paper is bleeding red ink?

NYT - Gay Therapy
WSJ - A New Therapy
APA Press Release
Examiner - Byron York

Lost In Translation: Obama Called a "Little Black Man"

Here's a little-noticed news item from AP:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) — The foreign relations minister in Honduras' interim government says he has sent a letter to Barack Obama apologizing for a racial comment he made about the U.S. president.

In a TV interview, Ortez said Obama "is a little black man who doesn't know where Tegucigalpa is located."

This is a good example of terrible reporting. "Little black man" sounds horrible in English, as it should. In Spanish, however, speakers liberally sprinkle such diminutives throughout their conversations. Little black man, "negrito" in Spanish is a common term of endearment among people of all skin shades.

In this case, the Honduran Foreign Minister was not using it as a term of endearment, but neither was this a "racial comment." If our president were Oriental, Ortez would have called him a "Chinito." They have a myriad of words for white people, from "fulo" to "rabi-blanco" (white-tail, or more vulgarly, white-ass), and they use all of these politically-incorrect words in routine conversation, with no racial bias intended and no offense taken.

Yes, the foreign minister was speaking contemptuously of our president, but it was not racial. Little things like this, where I have personal insight, are what lead me to conclude that much of our press is ignorant. They may be educated, but they lack the real-world experience to put what they report in proper context; and without context, their reportage is just a bunch of words.

I thought this would be a huge story, what with Honduras being in the news and now adding in a racial controversy. Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised it has gone largely unnoticed.

Google-AP - Honduras
El Tiempo - Cisma
El Tiempo - Se Excusa