Army Times to call for Rummys head...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabtastic, Nov 4, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. News just broke over here (US) reporting that the Military Times Group; the people who publish the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Times; will be publishing an editorial in their papers on Monday, calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

    Details to follow.
  2. Not surprised that they would call for Rummies' head. I beleive that a lot of US servicemen would say the he has much to answer for.

    What does really surprise me is the timing of the editorial to coincide with election week.

    I might atcually have to buy it this week!
  3. What the feck took them so long??
  4. Army Times is owned by Gannett. Needless to say they have an agenda. I almost did not renew my subscription.
  5. Is this a defensive measure on their part in case the elections go the Democrats way?
  6. Why does having a point of view equate with "having an agenda", like there's some sort of grand conspiracy? There is no news organization closer to the US armed forces, which comprises the overwhelming majority of their audience.

    Think of it this way, they have a very specific readership and they exist to make profit. If they thought for a second that people would cancel their subscriptions en masse in opposition, do you think for a second they'd run the editorial? I'm not naive enough to believe in journalistic integrity when it comes to something like this. When it's something this serious, it comes to questions of dollars and cents. Rule number one of journalism in a capitalist society is "don't fcuk up the money".

    NB. I don't know if this is the authentic piece or not.
  8. PTP, I think that's gen. it's consonant with what I heard earlier and other reports are using that language.

    Looks like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman have jumped ship too:

    With key neocons starting to backstab too, I'm starting to think for the first time that the writing really might be on the wall for Rummy.
  9. FINALY!!!!!!!! :roll:

    jezus, about fu*kin time Cletus woke up and saw through all the false over-the-top flag waving propaganda he's been subjected to, dragging the original ideals of his nation down by a bunch of manipulative monopolists hell bent on world-wide economic domination at the expense of thier own people.
    now he finaly realises just how the repukes are out for themselfs and how little they care about the average working class bloke.

    theres hope for the American yet.
  11. You would think so,but newspapers like the NYT and LA Times have lost alot of subscribers in the past couple of years. When this editorial appears, I will be interested to see the letters to the editor section. Essentially Gannett wants to influence the troops to vote democrat or not vote at all. Too bad though the CNN sniper video and Kerry's comments have the troops stirred up.
  12. You poor, simple soul. Since the early 90s, newspapers everywhere have been suffering from steadily falling circulation due to the proliferation of new media, specifically 24 hour cable news outlets and a little something called The Internet (Internets, if you're Bush who, by the way, is reportedly a big fan of "The Google").

    If your hypothesis that they have suffered a decline in sales due to their failure to support the retarded simian (and his handlers) who caused this whole mess is valid, one would have to begin with the precondition that the tw@t actually had a considerable level of public support. Shame his approval rating has been languishing in the mid 30s for most of the last 18 months. You would also have to demonstrate that sales fell off when editorials in the LAT and NYT etc. started to become more critical of the administration- because, certainly in the early days of the War Of Terror (thank-you Borat) they were at least acquiescent, if not openly supportive..

    Lastly, you're making an assumption that the instruction to write an print the editorial was a decision made my the Group's owners and not the papers' editors. Can demonstrate that this message came from upon high? Do you have any data or any source that might corobborate your idea? As it happens, if we look at political contributions, Gannett doesn't appear to be heavily involved in politics. They did slightly favour donating to Democrats (57%-43%), but between 1999 and 2002, they only contributed a little over $35k to political campaigns. (Compared to $3.1million by Viacom, $1.7 Million by NewsCorp, $250k by NBC and even McGraw-Hill contributed twice as much as Gannett, with $69k.) They own a large number of newspapers whose editorial positions vary from centre-left to center-right. (one can hardly call the biggest selling paper in Arizona a lefty rag.)

    General Melchett: "That's the spirit, George! If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
  13. You realize that two of Gannett's leading papers are the Arizona Republic and the Cincinatti Inquirer, both pro-republican conservative papers.
  14. Dont forget USA Today which is not friendly to the administration.
  15. As I have already stated, their output covers the mainstream political spectrum. Besides Nobody reads USA today for the news unless it's a complimentary copy from a hotel or airline.

    The point Virgil was making, Brain, is that you can't accuse the Garrett group of blatant partisanship the way you could perhaps levy the charge at News Corporation or Viacom. You're on a losing wicket with this line of argumentation.

    All this aside, what comeback do you have regarding Perle and Adelman's analyses?