Saturday, July 01, 2006

The New York Times Should Be Yanked For This New Story

The New York Times shouldn't just be censured by the Federal Government it appears, but possibly by the SEC or FTC:

The New York Times has no business detailing the costs and profit margins Apple receives for its products:

As reported on Slashdot:

The New York Times ran an article entitled Apple's Got a Secret. The article discusses the cost behind making the ever-popular iPod ... a secret the company is keeping close to its chest. As a result of the company's signature secrecy and antiquated way of tracking profits, analysts are beginning to question the 'trust me' nature of buying Apple stock.

From the article: "Geographic disclosure was adequate when pretty much all Apple sold were computers, Mr. Renck said. But the iPod has changed everything. Sales of Macintosh computers now trail those of iPod, which last year made up 46 percent of revenue. 'Apple clearly has its feet in two separate and distinct business models, namely computer manufacturing and software creation, and the consumer electronics industry," Mr. Renck said.

I'm with Bill O'Reilly on The New York Times ... they are about to sink. They support very biased editorial, aid ill sentiment towards the military, and often publish hyperbole just to boost sales or recognition.

You could "mad lib" the following to apply to the Apple story. From

Talking Points Memo & Top Story

"In a rare display of directly confronting his opponents in the press, President Bush is condemning the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal for exposing a covert money-tracking program designed to pinpoint terrorists. The editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, defended his decision to print the stories, saying there is not enough oversight of what President Bush does in the terror war. But the bottom line is this - the committed left media believes the Bush administration is damaging the country and is using the war on terror as an excuse to do it. That kind of extreme thinking is putting all Americans in danger. There's not one valid reason to expose a covert operation that is by all accounts entirely legal and designed to track money going to terrorists. The New York Times may have reached the tipping point. The paper is chock full of far-left columnists, and now its news pages could be damaging national security. So what should be done? I don't want to see these people prosecuted, and I don't think they will be - that would send a terrible message about freedom of the press. But in the court of public opinion, each American should make the call - who's looking out for you? Media that expose anti-terror secret programs that are legal? Or the government that is instituting those programs?"

The Factor was joined Republican Congressman Peter King, head of the House Homeland Security Committee. King actually called the Times "treasonous," and explained why. "This was a program about international financial transactions. Al Qaeda did not know we had a program of that extent and with that level of international cooperation. In a time of war you don't want to make the enemy's job any easier." King urged the Justice Department to charge Times executives with violating secrecy laws. "They should be prosecuted because we are talking about American lives here. This was a program that is entirely legal, effective, and is saving American lives. I'm calling on the Attorney General to launch a full investigation and prosecution of the New York Times."

From the other side of the ideological divide, Democrat Congressman Edward Markey accused President Bush of overstepping his legal authority when monitoring suspected terrorists. "The administration did not go through a federal court, and that is a very serious Fourth Amendment violation. We want the President to be as aggressive as possible in fighting Al Qaeda, but this debate is whether or not the Bush administration has to go through a federal judge. There have to be rules and guidelines." The Factor defended the anti-terror program as effective, necessary, and legal. "I'm an aggressive reporter and I don't want to hide anything from the American people they need to know. But I don't know one American who needs to know how the government is surveilling wire transfers to suspected terrorists."

No comments: