Article

2006-12-30 Iraq

Saddam Hussein's obituary in the Guardian

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 Steve White 2006-12-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well, da-yum, Steve. You mean al-Guardian isn't kissing his ass ~~as usual~~?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-12-30 00:42|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-12-30 00:42|| Front Page Top

#2 ...as any Guardian piece must...

Not just them, either. Here's the Times:

But a new American President, George W Bush, determined to find a scapegoat for the Muslim terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001, was in no mood to abide by the niceties of international law.

Don't know what else it said. I stopped reading there.

(Via Hot Air.)

Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-12-30 00:44|| 2006-12-30 00:44|| Front Page Top

#3 #2 Angie - the Times (both NYC and UK) can go f*ck themselves.

Just on general principles alone....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-12-30 01:03|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-12-30 01:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Barbara, they are already doing it. Have you ever seen a 5 year stock price chart of NYT? Check it out for a good laugh.

Posted by Ol Dirty American 2006-12-30 02:40|| 2006-12-30 02:40|| Front Page Top

#5 ODA: Have you ever seen a 5 year stock price chart of NYT? Check it out for a good laugh.

Looks a lot like the stock chart of Dow Jones and Co. Fact is that free news on the internet is causing newspapers a lot of headaches. The moment news agencies stop selling their product over the internet to Yahoo and so on, the newspapers will regain all of their old circulation. Since that will never happen, it looks like newspapers will need to resign themselves to a permanently low plateau of circulation. But this has more to do with pressure from free news outlets than ideology.

Note that it was Conrad Black's conservative media empire (Hollinger) that collapsed, not the New York Times, Gannett or Knight Ridder. Note that most of Rupert Murdoch's media empire is stridently left-wing, like the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times of London. The one consistently conservative paper, the New York Post, also consistently loses money.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-12-30 09:26|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-12-30 09:26|| Front Page Top

#6 Thanks for raining on my parade, Zhang Fei!

I, for one, will continue to believe the NYT is going down because it's evil. No more cold water, please!

Posted by Bobby 2006-12-30 09:54|| 2006-12-30 09:54|| Front Page Top

#7 But a new American President, George W Bush, determined to find a scapegoat for the Muslim terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001, was in no mood to abide by the niceties of international law.

Oh, the same international laws that allowed Saddam to flout UN resolutions for 14 years and make billions during the Oil for Food program? The international community was united against Iraq, (except Russia, those wonderful assassins/nuclear proliferators and the French, that wonderful lot who only need America when their cowardly backs are against the wall). Ask the people in Darfur and Rwanda how they like the niceties of international law.

As long as we have the NYT, Tokyo Rose stands in the unemployment line.

Posted by HammerHead 2006-12-30 10:17|| 2006-12-30 10:17|| Front Page Top

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-12-30 11:22|| 2006-12-30 11:22|| Front Page Top

#9 Zhang: I realize the reason why the NYT has gone down. I don't really care why. I just care about the fact they are doomed :). I am results driven :). BTW, they have lost more circulation than the NY post (which I think has somewhat gained circulation or stayed stable) - so there :).

Posted by Ol Dirty American 2006-12-30 12:47|| 2006-12-30 12:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Everyone can feel free to be happy about the NYT's impending demise again :).

Posted by Ol Dirty American 2006-12-30 12:48|| 2006-12-30 12:48|| Front Page Top

#11 I hope the NYTs fall results in a stockholder takeover. Right now, the Sulzbergers, who run the thing with "special" stock, are actually trying to drive the price down so they can buy back the paper and privatize it.

This would utterly screw their shareholders in the process, so some of the larger ones are revolting, and trying to overthrow the Sulzberger dynasty.

Either way, we can hope that it will be a long and nasty fight, with the newspaper reduced to running truss ads on page 5.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-12-30 13:57|| 2006-12-30 13:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Actually the reason the NYT is still alive is because the holding company has been madly buying small newspapers in flyover country. The add revenue in these small newspapers is profitable and keeps the "Flagship" newspaper afloat.

Al

Posted by frozen Al 2006-12-30 15:23|| 2006-12-30 15:23|| Front Page Top

23:44 Captain America
23:42 Captain America
23:27 wxjames
23:20 wxjames
23:10 Dunno
22:59 twobyfour
22:55 Anonymoose
22:26 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:22 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:20 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:16 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:07 Frank G
22:06 gromgoru
22:03 gromgoru
21:49 Jackal
21:46 Jackal
21:41 Frank G
21:26 Nimble Spemble
21:21 Nimble Spemble
21:18 49 Pan
21:14 Nimble Spemble
21:11 Capsu 78
21:10 Nimble Spemble
21:10 RD