Article

2006-11-04 Home Front: Politix

"Military" Times To Call For Rumsfeld Resignation?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-04 10:40|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

And a hell of a lot harder to come by from any of the mainstream media. All these 'military' papers fall under the Gannett Co. empire which considers USA Today to be their flagship McNewspapaer. I'm betting this cheap trick generates some nasty letters to the editor and a big-ass circulation drop-off.

Posted by SteveS 2006-11-04 11:06|| 2006-11-04 11:06|| Front Page Top

#2 ..The 'Times' papers have no idea how badly this is going to blow back on them. The troops will stop buying and subscribing and start reading Stars and Stripes - which most overseas personnel do anyways.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-11-04 11:54|| 2006-11-04 11:54|| Front Page Top

#3 What is it with the print media's suicide agenda these days? I thought they were in "business" to make money. Guess not.

Somehow I think the goofy "truth to power" thingy plays a little better in Berkeley than Fort Benning.

Posted by .com 2006-11-04 12:07|| 2006-11-04 12:07|| Front Page Top

#4 "What is it with the print media's suicide agenda these days?"

.com, it's not a suicide agenda to the MSM. It's nostalgia. Cue the cut from Bob Dylan's All Around the Watch Tower performed by Jimi Hendrix.

The MSM have been following the polls nationwide. They realize their unrelenting anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Repub drum beat has finally taken root and will sprout fruit on November 7th. Hey folks, it's just like the late 1960's and early 1970's all over again! Gosh, let's have a War Moratorium Day! Let's have another Woodstock! Joni Mitchell and CSN&Y are still alive, right?

(If we - the USA - walk on Iraq and/or Afghanistan we'll be accomplice to the murder - read slaughter - to a countless number of people in those countries that allied with us. Let's review: We walked from North Korea in '53. We walked from Viet Nam in '74-'75. We walked from Iran in '79. We walked from Lebanon in '83. We walked from southern Iraq in '91. We walked from Somalia in '93. What was the aftermath? Notice the pattern? I know you do. The MSM and Dems do not.

If the Dems win just a little next Tuesday I'll blame the Repubs (for stupidity) and the MSM (for bias). If the Dems win big I will blame the MSM (bias and treason)and the American people (stupidity) for failing to recognize the threat to Western Civ. and for failing to have the will to defend (cowardice).

The MSM and most Dems do not view "walking away" or kicking the can down the street as a bad thing, but rather something to be celebrated
and admired. We both know that's bullsh+t.

I'm going to shut now before I say something that will get me sinktrapped.

Posted by Mark Z 2006-11-04 13:41|| 2006-11-04 13:41|| Front Page Top

#5 Yes, Garnett, the proud owners of US Today. I suspect the troops know what to do with this editorial (hint: anyone need toilet paper?)

Posted by Captain America 2006-11-04 14:22|| 2006-11-04 14:22|| Front Page Top

#6 what does military.com have to say about it?

Posted by anon 2006-11-04 15:22|| 2006-11-04 15:22|| Front Page Top

#7 Mark Z - Points well-taken, I assure you... print media's losing value and whacking staff like crazy these days, and not for fun IMO, so I do consider it a suicide agenda from a business POV - they just seem to think their editorial opinion is more important than the sales / circ numbers.

Stuck on 1969, as someone said long ago.

Posted by .com 2006-11-04 15:26|| 2006-11-04 15:26|| Front Page Top

#8 It is an obvious attempt to influence an election. It is unlikely their readers will take kindly to that.

Posted by anon 2006-11-04 15:34|| 2006-11-04 15:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Watch the circulation of the Army Time to take a dive. The next two week will have some interesting comments, like mine ending my suscription.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-11-04 20:13|| 2006-11-04 20:13|| Front Page Top

#10 I think it was interesting that Military Times made this decision. They had to be aware that this was circulation suicide for them. I have no doubt that the decision was made knowing fully well that their circulation would plummet as a result. Apparently, they masters at Gannett felt that it was worth throwing in the towel for the advantage they believe this will give them on Nov. 7.

I've notice in that last 10 days that many other papers are are talking of major cuts in the very near future. It's like they are hanging on until after this election. Perhaps that is what is going on at Military Times. Maybe Gannett isn't winning enough hearts and minds for the money they pay to keep Military Times afloat and they have decided to maximize their advantge in this next election before they bail. Whatever. It's interesting that they decided to cash in their chips. Quite honestly, I don't think it is going to have that big of an impact as they had hoped.

Posted by anon 2006-11-04 20:48|| 2006-11-04 20:48|| Front Page Top

#11 I guess I should proof read before I hit submit.

Posted by anon 2006-11-04 20:50|| 2006-11-04 20:50|| Front Page Top

#12 They had to be aware that this was circulation suicide for them.

No, they have a chinese wall between news/editorial and business. The newsies disdain the business side and could care less whether the boss makes a profit. If they run the paper under they'll just get a job somewhere else. The world owes them a living.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-04 20:51|| 2006-11-04 20:51|| Front Page Top

#13 In the case of Gannett, I'd be just as inclined to see this as an editorial decision that echoes the ownership.

USA Today has been increasingly anti-Bush all year.

Posted by lotp 2006-11-04 20:55|| 2006-11-04 20:55|| Front Page Top

#14 what does military.com have to say about it?

I second this question. I wouldn't have guessed it, but it seems like the "Military" Times isn't put out by the military. Hmm. If the military has something to say, it better say it fast and loud right fuc&ing now. Otherwise it might as well give its tacit approval.

Posted by gorb 2006-11-04 20:59|| 2006-11-04 20:59|| Front Page Top

#15 loud right fuc&ing now.

like mine ending my suscription.
Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-04 20:13

Not to worry, we will remove the trash from our lives.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-11-04 21:08|| 2006-11-04 21:08|| Front Page Top

#16 What the military says: Defense Department Response

I wouldn't have guessed it, but it seems like the "Military" Times isn't put out by the military.

You have just voiced what will be the biggest loss to Military Times. This publicity will make it common knowledge that it is a civilian magazine that is just an arm of Gannett. Few people knew that. People buy it because it lists promotions, pay rates, benefits, and a few other standard features that are of interest. But all of their articles have had a typical MSM negative tone for quite some time.

Posted by anon 2006-11-04 21:10|| 2006-11-04 21:10|| Front Page Top

#17 good for you, 49 Pan!

Posted by anon 2006-11-04 21:12|| 2006-11-04 21:12|| Front Page Top

17:17 Contrarian
23:58 C-Low
23:46 Sherry
23:34 Zenster
23:23 Old Patriot
23:21 anon
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:58 Old Patriot
22:52 JosephMendiola
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:45 Zenster
22:44 anymouse
22:37 Mike
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:34 Zenster
22:26 Korora
22:26 USN,Ret
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:22 Zenster
22:18 Frank G
22:16 SpecOp35
22:15 Pappy
22:13 USN,Ret