real putrid-osity

[skate]

by the NYT.

why do so many people hang up on the new york times?

here is their headline;

Misssteps by Iraqi forces in battle raise Questions

they go on with," Iraq forces were surprised and nearly overehelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle..."


then later in the 6th paragraph, most people stop reading by then.


they finally say, "the Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle".


THEY TRY TO CONFORm to a stereotype of iraq, even with a sucesss story, they seem to want to say the struggle is futile and that sucess is only incidental.


and wanna bet, this is when they take their poll, really finding out, just how many people read the whole thing.

[chickenhead]

haven't seen it...but it sounds like the angle is:

iraqi troops were getting their asses handed to them till we stepped in to help....therefore we're a little concerned about their readiness?

is that the gist of it?

[skate]

the gist of victory, yes sir.


something that usually takes in printing on "top of the fold". im sure you agree, thanks.


victory, with, or

without, slants.

[chickenhead]

there is one thing that makes me wonder if they're not actually being kind rather than what you assume...is this: "obscure renegade militia"

sounds like code for: a couple of dudes and a pitbull, or something of the like.

like I said..haven;t read the story, but not sure why you assume they are under reporting a major victory...rather than being kind about the fact that an Iraqi battalion was almost overtaken by 3 guys with water pistols, or the like.


I don't know, and neither do you.

[Suff]

the gist of victory, yes sir.


something that usually takes in printing on "top of the fold". im sure you agree, thanks.
.

he he. 6th paragraph? Are those pargraphs? If So, paragraphs 32 and 34 should have been above the fold, and spread across the banner.

Your math is wrong. Headlines and 5 paragraphs are for the weak , and 6 paragraph readers know better.
Next time the Sayyed Muqtada Al-Sadr Freedom Fighters defeat the Shiite Soldiers of Heaven , I'll arrange a big parade down Main Street.

Also, click the link for the way 263 other lefty's pitched;

The battle at Najaf (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-42%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Najaf&btnG=Search)

[chickenhead]

alright I read the story you are talking about skate...you realize that is a followup? They reported on the actual battle on Sunday. This was there follow-up, after learning some more details, like:

“This group had more capabilities than the government,” said Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf Province, at a news conference.

Among the troubling questions raised is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 10 miles northeast of Najaf. After the fight was over, Iraqi officials said they discovered at least two antiaircraft weapons as well as 40 heavy machine guns.

[PlanB]

by the NYT.

why do so many people hang up on the new york times?

here is their headline;

Misssteps by Iraqi forces in battle raise Questions

they go on with," Iraq forces were surprised and nearly overehelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle..."


then later in the 6th paragraph, most people stop reading by then.


they finally say, "the Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle".


THEY TRY TO CONFORm to a stereotype of iraq, even with a sucesss story, they seem to want to say the struggle is futile and that sucess is only incidental.


and wanna bet, this is when they take their poll, really finding out, just how many people read the whole thing.

You sound like a constant drone. You critcize the NY Times when I'm sure you can't read 6 news paragraphs in 6 hrs. I thought you had some muscle when you talked economics, not much, just some, and you amused me, but when you talk politics I'm so glad you're in AZ & I'm in NYC. I'm passing your drivel off to (a) Dust; (b) Heat; (c) Boredom.

[Suff]

.
Next time the Sayyed Muqtada Al-Sadr Freedom Fighters defeat the Shiite Soldiers of Heaven , I'll arrange a big parade down Main Street.

Also, click the link for the way 263 other lefty's pitched;

The battle at Najaf (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-42%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Najaf&btnG=Search)

The link freshens as news unfolds....and this story has legs. Pretty soon, I predict.....A life.

[skate]

alright I read the story you are talking about skate...you realize that is a followup? They reported on the actual battle on Sunday. This was there follow-up, after learning some more details, like:


actually, ive not really read the NYT for about 5 years.
but from what ive heard about the story and from what i keep hearing about the Iraqi war, they (NYT) along with most big city news groups, keep on reporting the negative and they intentionally lower the exposure to the positve side.
i thought this story made the point, when i saw the heading say "MISSTEPS", when the real story "how did things turn out" was victory, bottom line.

as a mater of fact,imo, this little , somewhat insignificant, story tells the big story ahead, imo, we will win.
as the battle of Missteps ended in victory, so will the overall war have misssteps, ending in victory.

oh, might be, only me thinking this way, we'll see. the only real point im aware of is "war is still going on", so i'll go along, until the other side surrenders.

[skate]

The link freshens as news unfolds....and this story has legs. Pretty soon, I predict.....A life.

im gonna try to get thru some of your url, im just not that fast, especially between beers...

[skate]

Suff;


id have to figure, if 250 were killed by the Iraqi Military, that we trained, and they lost 25 of their own, that would jmean to me, that they are standing up for the gov. of Iraq.
which we keep hearing that is not the case.
this story seems to refute the Iraqis not being capable to fight.

this is a battle field, right, and not a Donut shop. not easy, but it is life as we know it...

[chickenhead]

i thought this story made the point, when i saw the heading say "MISSTEPS", when the real story "how did things turn out" was victory, bottom line.

I think the reason we're talking about this, or why I;m talking aobut this..is it kind of brings up the difficulty of this war, or maybe better yet wars, plural.

"We're fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here". OK, lets say I believe that. Who is them? These guys that lost this battle you're talking about? No. These guys are some other guys. This is some other thing. Some internal Iraq thing.

So why would we celebrate that? These aren't the guys we're interested in fighting...these guys aren't the guys we want to be fighting. We're interested in fighting terrorists, and Al Qaeda. Not some splinter fringe religious group. This sounds to me like the Iraqi version of David Koresh. We just helped the Iraqis take down David Koresh. That should be front page...or even of interest?

I think the NY Times got it right..the only thing that really is of interest, is that we had to help them. It's pretty much a loss in the first place, when we have to fight guys like this, and get involved in all of this internal Iraqi BS. There is no victory unless we are fighting our enemies. OUR enemies.

I might agree with you somewhat on the bigger picture, but the example you chose is really a shoddy one, imo, like to the extreme. Your view, taken out, all that we should see is a scoreboard, our dead and their dead. That's the only number we need to know.

I don't think that's terrible informative, certainly thats not how the military decides how we're doing, so why should it be ours?

[skate]

I think the reason we're talking about this, or why I;m talking aobut this..is it kind of brings up the difficulty of this war, or maybe better yet wars, plural.

"We're fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here". OK, lets say I believe that. Who is them? These guys that lost this battle you're talking about? No. These guys are some other guys. This is some other thing. Some internal Iraq thing.

So why would we celebrate that? These aren't the guys we're interested in fighting...these guys aren't the guys we want to be fighting. We're interested in fighting terrorists, and Al Qaeda. Not some splinter fringe religious group. This sounds to me like the Iraqi version of David Koresh. We just helped the Iraqis take down David Koresh. That should be front page...or even of interest?

I think the NY Times got it right..the only thing that really is of interest, is that we had to help them. It's pretty much a loss in the first place, when we have to fight guys like this, and get involved in all of this internal Iraqi BS. There is no victory unless we are fighting our enemies. OUR enemies.

I might agree with you somewhat on the bigger picture, but the example you chose is really a shoddy one, imo, like to the extreme. Your view, taken out, all that we should see is a scoreboard, our dead and their dead. That's the only number we need to know.

I don't think that's terrible informative, certainly thats not how the military decides how we're doing, so why should it be ours?

well, ok , but i think you could do better.

sure, this NYT article is a very small part of the whole, but that is what everything -anywhere -and- all -the -time is made up from. cant start with big.
they,NYT, know this and they know "saftey in numbers", they know that i can not take this story by itself and proclaim that they lie.
no, it is not a lie, but diception. it is deception because over the last 12 months or so, we are being told " the Iraqi people do not care enough to protect themselves", then Bingo, here we finally have Iraqi troops (USA trained) fighting for their Constitution.


let me get more to your point, that being, "who are we fighting"? great question.
im not sure, but if they (anyone) start coming out from the woods shooting. well, its time for a little self defense. oh, of coarse, we'll have lots of fault-finding...
i think a perfect example would be the UK finding out about the terrorist who were about to capture some UK soldiers. who were they? i dont care. what i do care about is thepoint that "we do not know exactely who we are fighting"

[Secretariat]

Chicken

We disagree a lot, but I would be interested in a few things.

1. What exactly is the definition of victory in Iraq?

2. How much are we willing to pay in cost and time to accomplish this victory?

3. What sacrifices by the American people will be required to pay for that victory? What has to be given up?

4. What are the itnellgience estimates for this victory?

5. Is there an exit strategy in the event that this victory is deemed later untenable?

6. Will there need to be other fronts needed such as Iran and what will be the costs and sacrifies associated with invading Iran?

No BS Lety and Rush type of rhetoric...real numbers, real timeframes, and real fiscal and casualty estimates. Bring the reality of it to the people and let them decide. After all it is a democracy we're advocating.

[skate]

hay hay hay;


i swear, i didnt know, but i just heard on the radio, that NYT lost over 600 million, last quarter.

oh sure, we have lots of excuses, and i have lots of other newspapers that are showing big profits in a strong economy.

i guess it is no wonder the NYT is so Negatory.

[chickenhead]

sec, I'm interested in the same things. As I've said before, and repeatedly, I don't know what the hell is going on in Iraq.

[chickenhead]

im not sure, but if they (anyone) start coming out from the woods shooting. well, its time for a little self defense.

people shooting at who is the problem. Us, sure. Iraqi police? What you are saying is that once there is peace in Iraq, then things will be good. My question is, has there ever been peace in Iraq? Hasn't there always been people coming out of the woods shooting other Iraqis?

Unfortunately I do think it's important to know who they're shooting at, and why, because we may have to come to terms that people will always be shooting each other in Iraq.

Like I said before, one the big things before this invasion that gave me pause, was when I read that there were like 16 coup de tat attempts in the few years before Saddam took over. This hasn't ever been a peaceful country. If we are counting on it to be peaceful before we leave, we may be in serious trouble.

That's why I'm saying, lets figure out who we need to kill over there, and then kill them, and then leave. I know that we can kill people pretty fast, and I know we can leave fast. So the problem must be in figuring out who to kill. If it boils down to "we kill whoever shoots at us", again, we're in trouble. IF, as some have said, the problem is politcal, like we're afraid to kill them, F@CK that, you have to do what you have to do. Either way, let's git er done, and get home.

[Suff]

hay hay hay;


i swear, i didnt know, but i just heard on the radio, that NYT lost over 600 million, last quarter.

oh sure, we have lots of excuses, and i have lots of other newspapers that are showing big profits in a strong economy.

i guess it is no wonder the NYT is so Negatory.

Don't become a waste of my time ok? Because I occasionally like your views on things. But if you go bonkers and downright bizarre... I just skip on by.

Story......Your were not just wrong....You were criminally negligent. Because not only was the story a vanilla version of something very alarming...., but

You seem intent on disarming america of a Free Press. You do it two ways...

1. You insult Americans by insinuating they can't dessimante news...., as in this case when you said "most people stop reading by the 6th paragraph"

2. You insist information is manipulated so that harm will come to them and/or thier Country. In this case... They'll die if we leave Iraq, and the NY Times keeps reporting in such a way that Americans want to leave.


What a conspiracy.... Liberal Media wants Americans Dead. They plant news, and manipulate news so that Americans Unwittingly support the enemy. Then after America leaves Iraq, The enemy gets a Nuke and Nuke's America.......but,,, the day before the Nuke explodes, the NY times loads all their printing press's on to a ship.....an Ark ,if you will....and they take two of every Liberal on this ARK.....and when the NUKE lands on America.. The Liberals start printing more liberal media in IRAQ ........

I'd imagine it will be stuff like an ATTACK on ALLAH, and Removing ALLAH from the Public Square....and Trying to get The Quaran out of schools...

Do you see what I am saying?

. That story was manipulated in the EXACT OPPOSITE of the way you suggested... IT WAS FILTERED BY THE US GOVERNMENT!!

[skate]

people shooting at who is the problem. Us, sure. Iraqi police? What you are saying is that once there is peace in Iraq, then things will be good. My question is, has there ever been peace in Iraq? Hasn't there always been people coming out of the woods shooting other Iraqis?

Unfortunately I do think it's important to know who they're shooting at, and why, because we may have to come to terms that people will always be shooting each other in Iraq.

Like I said before, one the big things before this invasion that gave me pause, was when I read that there were like 16 coup de tat attempts in the few years before Saddam took over. This hasn't ever been a peaceful country. If we are counting on it to be peaceful before we leave, we may be in serious trouble.

That's why I'm saying, lets figure out who we need to kill over there, and then kill them, and then leave. I know that we can kill people pretty fast, and I know we can leave fast. So the problem must be in figuring out who to kill. If it boils down to "we kill whoever shoots at us", again, we're in trouble. IF, as some have said, the problem is politcal, like we're afraid to kill them, F@CK that, you have to do what you have to do. Either way, let's git er done, and get home.

oh yes, i 'm not in disagreement with any specific point you make, thats good.
brutal country, always.
peaceful before we leave? not necessary.
we leave? not necessary either. oh yes, nice if it happens, but..aint coming soon.

i know it is nice to be able to figure out, who we need to kill, but if we are still trying to figure out "who", then to put any limit on ourselves, to me , that would be the time we can say "we lost" and the brutality will spread. and thats the big concern,imo.

basically, we need a foot on their ground and with some calm in Iraq, then we go for Iran.
the only reason i say this, we can not stop until they stop.
i doubt that Iran will listen to Russia. and its good to see China having a good economic run.

what happened in UK, says to me, Big, no end in site.

[Suff]

hay hay hay;


i swear, i didnt know, but i just heard on the radio, that NYT lost over 600 million, last quarter.

oh sure, we have lots of excuses, and i have lots of other newspapers that are showing big profits in a strong economy.

i guess it is no wonder the NYT is so Negatory.

I just finished my market wrapup.... Buying Yahoo Tommorrow at the opening bell.

NY Times loss....explained.

The New York Times Co. may have just posted its first loss in 10 years, mainly due to a one-time write-down charge for New England Media Group (read: the Boston Globe), but investors saw reason to be optimistic and traded the stock up by $0.19 (0.83%) to $23.09.

The $739 million write-down meant the Times reported a net loss of $648 million, or $4.50 a share, compared with a gain of $63.2 million, good for EPS of $0.44 during the year earlier period.

Without the one-time costs, Revenue rose 4.3 percent to $931.5 million. Excluding the charge, earnings rose 39% to $87.9 million, (EPS of $0.61). Analysts polled by Thomson Financial projected earnings of 46 cents a share (Bloomberg analysts predicted $0.47); revenue estimates were for $899 million. Benchmark analyst Edward Atorino was impressed with the results with one exception: "Besides [the] Boston [Globe], the results really are quite good,'' he said


http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/thumb-nyt_04.png (http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/nyt_04.png)

[skate]

I just finished my market wrapup.... Buying Yahoo Tommorrow at the opening bell.

NY Times loss....explained.

The New York Times Co. may have just posted its first loss in 10 years, mainly due to a one-time write-down charge for New England Media Group (read: the Boston Globe), but investors saw reason to be optimistic and traded the stock up by $0.19 (0.83%) to $23.09.

The $739 million write-down meant the Times reported a net loss of $648 million, or $4.50 a share, compared with a gain of $63.2 million, good for EPS of $0.44 during the year earlier period.

Without the one-time costs, Revenue rose 4.3 percent to $931.5 million. Excluding the charge, earnings rose 39% to $87.9 million, (EPS of $0.61). Analysts polled by Thomson Financial projected earnings of 46 cents a share (Bloomberg analysts predicted $0.47); revenue estimates were for $899 million. Benchmark analyst Edward Atorino was impressed with the results with one exception: "Besides [the] Boston [Globe], the results really are quite good,'' he said


http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/thumb-nyt_04.png (http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/nyt_04.png)

seems like (to me) they went to an aroundabout way to explain something that is not there.

they say, "first lose in ten years".
last 12 months @ 1.51
previous 12mos@ 1.72

so, down .21

on top of that bs;
them miss the current year estimate by .07

now the curent year estimate is 1.34
next year estimate is 1.13

not to newsworthy about boston paper, so i'd assume they were expecting, and if so, that should mean next years estimate to be much higher, not lower.

what did you find?