Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody who cares about truth, or the accelerated downward turn of domestic society, should be subscribing to NYT, in broadsheet or in digital format. In the past year, the top page has gone full gender bender something-or-other in the right margin every single day of the year. In its comments sections, it censors conservative voices like the Iron Curtain did by preventing them from ever seeing print.
It even 100%-censors high profile hard news--any 10th Amendment narrative it can't warp. The New York Times printed not a single word on the Bundy rangeland escalation as it grew to over 1000 participants, even through the climactic stand-down of BLM. Its eventual first words to print in concessionary acknowledgement of its existence--Pravda-like with a grudging, petulant Timothy Egan piece--was a full 6 days after the BLM walked away.
It's a globalist organ designed for debasement of humanity.
You must be a subscriber to have been able to observe all of that. Admit it - you read it.
Doesn't meet their "criteria"? Care to explain that???
The NYT can't suppress anything. They're a private company, not a government.
I'm sorry your feelings are hurt, but if the NYT doesn't want to put Ted Cruz on its list, there's no law requiring it to. It doesn't have to explain itself either, but in fact it did provide an explanation.
I'm sure you can find several right-wing publications that appreciate the book. It's not as if Cruz has to fight for ink.
And, BTW, IMO, the lowest they've gone was supporting Judith Miller in the runup to the Iraq invasion. People actually died because of that.
You must be a subscriber to have been able to observe all of that. Admit it - you read it.
[]
Freely. I would be limiting my sources of information (it still contains some) for parsing what goes on in the world--including its editorial universe--if I didn't at least skim it. But I have never, and would never, think to buy a subscription to it. (I can't stop my tax-funded library from doing it.)
An awareness of its liabilities is informed by being abreast of what, or what does not, get reported in its pages.
By contrast it would be no surprise if the audience reads that you severely curtail your understanding of the world by avoiding more conservative outlets.
Freely. I would be limiting my sources of information (it still contains some) for parsing what goes on in the world--including its editorial universe--if I didn't skim it. But I have never, and would never, think to buy a subscription to it. (I can't stop my tax-funded library from doing it.)
An awareness of its liabilities is informed by being abreast of what, or what does not, get reported in its pages.
By contrast it would be no surprise if you severely curtail your understanding of the world by avoiding more conservative outlets.
Actually, on the contrary, I have no problem reading conservative sources, or any other source for that matter.
[if Fox, or similar, states 2+2=4, I won't argue it's 5]
Logically, then, anything they produce such as their Best-Seller List, is irrelevant. Thus, the OP is either outraged by a rag he doesn't read or you just insulted him.
With that said, the NYT is not suppressing free speech. It simply won't put Cruz' book on the list. The NYT is not the government, it's a private entity. They can apply whatever rules it wants. Besides, if one really wants to read the book, then they will read it whether it is on the list or not. It is readily available.
[it's just a list]
I never implied that they were "suppressing" free speech. They simply lie. Entirely different issue.
Doesn't meet their "criteria"? Care to explain that???
Looks like others already explained it. They are looking at not just number but also the breadth of sales customers, i.e. discounting the result if it's bulk sales to just one or two entities for a given time period.
Nothing wrong with it. They state this policy up-front. Their paper, they can do as they wish. Nothing in the First Amendment says that they can't do this. Don't like it? Then don't read it - which you already do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
