New York Times Credit Rating Approaching Junk Status

[Michael Tee]

Cell phones are a pretty expensive way of accessing the Net.  I try to avoid using them for that as much as possible.  Also inefficient use of time.  The tiny screen means you gotta wait while the message scrolls through.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I take the Internet everywhere, thanks to my Nokia N800.

==============================================
You really mean that you can access the Internet with your telephone when you are near a connection. I can't see how this could replace a newspaper, or even a computer with a screen large enough to actually read comfortably

[Amianthus]

You really mean that you can access the Internet with your telephone when you are near a connection. I can't see how this could replace a newspaper, or even a computer with a screen large enough to actually read comfortably

Or, if I'm near WiFi, I use that. It has both Bluetooth and WiFi built in, so I can access wireless either way (cell or 802.11). The screen is 800X600 and is quite comfortable to read - with reading glasses it actually looks pretty big. It has hardware zooming and a finger drag if it's still too small.

And it replaces newspapers quite well with an RSS reader application which goes and grabs the news articles that I'm interested in automatically whenever I'm near a wireless point, even if I'm not using it, so I always have the current news in my pocket.

Has built in webcam and mic, so I can use it for voip as well (Skype, etc).

[sirs]

<<Yea......and?  1 reporter vs the multitude of reporters that wrote and slandered Bush otherwise.  But I see your point.  Since the Times wasn't 100% anti-Bush. only 98%, they must have sold their soul >>

Judith Miller's bullshit stories weren't like the "multitude" of NYT reporter stories, they were long, prominently displayed and designed to swing public opinion around behind Bush's plans for war.

Even if we were to play this sick little game of yours, it would have been Judith Miller trying to sway said public opinion (as opposed to her job of simply reporting minus the anti-Bush bias you appear to believe every reporter must have).  That game seems to omit the vast majority of other reporters who did have the appropriate anti-Bush bias, and did report any and everything negative regarding Iraq, Bush, & Cheney.  Postitive news was quickly turned negative, to stay consistent with their overwhelming anti Bush/anti-war agenda.  Lies regarding Bush & Iraq, printed on the front page, when they were retracted, were done so in small corners at the bottom of page A-20.  But like a good defense attorney, they got the message out, Bush bad, Iraq war bad.  And that's just simply playing your twisted little game, as your game obligates the MSM not only to be biased, but 100% biased, instead of the current soul-selling levels of only 98%

And its thoroughly appreciated how you'd advocate that papers sit on stories, and pull them out right before an election.  Who cares about credibility.  Ends justify the means, dammit

[Michael Tee]

<<Even if we were to play this sick little game of yours, it would have been Judith Miller trying to sway said public opinion (as opposed to her job of si9mply reporting minus the anti-Bush bias you appear to believe every reporter must have).>>

ROTLMFAO.  Here's a news flash for you, sirs - - reporters have editors. Yes, even on the New York Times, which, I must inform you is not and never was Judith Miller's private blog.  Editors assign stories, and editors edit stories and editors can even kill stories.  At the end of the day, a reporter is still just a reporter.  Journalism 101.  You're welcome.

<<And its thoroughly appreciated how you'd advocate that papers sit on stories, and pull them out right before an election. >>

They had the story already and held it till after the election.  Not quite what you were describing, but then reality seldom if ever is.

[sirs]

<<Even if we were to play this sick little game of yours, it would have been Judith Miller trying to sway said public opinion (as opposed to her job of simply reporting minus the anti-Bush bias you appear to believe every reporter must have).>>

Here's a news flash for you, sirs - - reporters have editors.

Yea.......and?  Those editiors are the same ones that also allow the overwhelming anti-Bush, anti-war propogan....reporting to go unchecked.  So, as has been demonstrated, your beef with the NYTimes is that they're not 24/7 100% anti-Bush, anti-war, like any good objective newspaper should be.  They're only 98%, which makes them soul selling.  Speaks volumes for your perspective, Tee

[Michael Tee]

My perspective is simply that they are with Bush on the main things, where it really counts,  and snipe at him on the small stuff, probably to preserve as much as they can of their "objective" reputation - - a tactic which seems to have worked very well on people like you.

[BT]

That's generally true across the board, but the NYT in particular had a credibility problem stemming mainly from Judith Miller, the Jayson Blair incidentand the pre-election suppression of the illegal surveillance story that fortunately was not widely shared by other papers.

I'm guessing the NYT's problem have more to do with circulation than they do with bias.

The market changed. For example the Post is a Murdoch property, same with Fox. What other media outlets does the Times control? Do they have television properties, film studios, a strong internet presence?

Doubtful.

The market changed and they didn't adapt. Simply Darwinian.

[sirs]

My perspective is simply that they are with Bush on the main things, where it really counts,  and snipe at him on the small stuff, probably to preserve as much as they can of their "objective" reputation

*snicker*....well, we thank you for that Bush-is-a-moronic-version-of-Hitler opinion (to which the template mandates all stories on Bush be negative and when necessary, lie.  Anything less, and they've sold their souls, and in cahoots with Bush "on the main things")

Indeed.  But like you, I'm also of the mindset they've lost all credibility & objectivity.  Just not for the moronic & irrational reasons you feel     

[fatman]

I take the Internet everywhere, thanks to my Nokia N800.

This'll probably shock you Ami, but I don't carry a cell phone.  I did once upon a time, decided I hated that hassle of people that I don't like talking to calling me, and got rid of it.  I've been thinking I should get a pre-paid one to take hiking with me for emergencies, but most of the places I hike don't get coverage anyway.  I think a Sat phone is out of my price range.

Besides, nothing beats getting to work early, having a cup of coffee and going over the paper, same thing at lunch with a sandwich.

[Amianthus]

This'll probably shock you Ami, but I don't carry a cell phone.

GrandCentral solved most of those concerns for me. I don't know if they're still taking new people on their beta test, but you set your phone to route certain people straight to voice mail, you can setup certain phones to only ring for certain people, and the cool feature - call screening, you can route someone to VM when the phone rings, and listen in on the VM and hit the * button if you decide to talk to them. But the biggest thing is that it announces your calls - when you answer one of your phones, it tells you who's calling, and you can answer the call, send them straight to VM, or call screen them. I haven't done this yet, but I'm pretty sure you can setup a list of people who, when they call, get through to your cell phone, another list who go only to office or home phones, and then default everyone else straight to VM.

Besides, nothing beats getting to work early, having a cup of coffee and going over the paper, same thing at lunch with a sandwich.

And, if you have WiFi at your office, you can do the same thing on the Nokia only without the dead trees. Matter of fact, I usually use the book reader app on the N800 at lunch time to read whatever book I'm in the middle of. The N800 has a built in stand that unfolds to hold it at a convenient viewing angle.

The best thing about the Nokia is that it runs Linux - no Microsloth software on the thing...

[Amianthus]

This'll probably shock you Ami, but I don't carry a cell phone.

And, BTW in case anyone is confused, the Nokia N800 is not a cell phone.

It is an Internet tablet - in essence a pocket-sized laptop computer.

[Amianthus]

Cell phones are a pretty expensive way of accessing the Net.

I don't consider $20 a month for all the bandwidth you can suck down to be expensive.

[Michael Tee]

<<Besides, nothing beats getting to work early, having a cup of coffee and going over the paper>>

Amen to that.  One of life's little pleasures.

I worked in Toronto's old city hall a million years ago.  Beautiful old structure with polished oak floors, massive broad marble floating staircases, high ceilings, sunlit wood-paneled offices, accessed in the front by climbing a huge flight of outside stairs and on the side at street level by a little door leading into what was like a basement only at ground-level, with a newsstand-coffee counter just inside, run by the CNIB, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. 

The guys at work used to arrive at about 8:30, get their coffee and Globe & Mail (Toronto's "business" daily) at the newsstand and then sit around the office reading the paper, drinking coffee and munching doughnuts till the start of the working day at 9:00 AM.

One day some genius decided that the work day would start at 8:30 AM and end at 4:30.  The results were basically that all the older guys would come in with their coffees, Globes and doughnuts at 8:30, just as before, sit around reading, drinking and munching till 9:00 AM just as before, and then get to work.  The only difference now was they left at 4:30 instead of 5:00.  I was the new guy in the office and was severely reprimanded for starting work at 8:30 as required.  I got the message.  That was a precious half-hour, and appreciated by all as such.