Having long ago turned its back on objective journalism to become the mouthpiece for liberal ideology, the Democrat party, and corrupt unions, it was still somewhat of a surprise to see the compromised editors of the paper do something which might cause Anthony Weiner to recoil from its unseemly request.
On Friday, June 10th, the State of Alaska released more than 24,000 of former Governor Sarah Palin’s emails. A Democrat recently told me that some liberals get more satisfaction out of a Palin “mistake,” or in smearing her and her family with more political mud than in the actual killing of Bin Laden. Apparently.
The New York Times -- under the headline “Help Us Review The Sarah Palin E-Mail Records” -- has just asked its readers to help its reporters to “identify interesting and newsworthy emails, people, and events that we may want to highlight.” Interesting and newsworthy being nothing more than liberal code for anything which will inflict further pain and suffering upon Sarah Palin and her family.
At first, I honestly thought it was a joke. Maybe David Letterman and Jon Stewart’s writers got sick of being mindless servants to the left and decided to have some fun at the expense of the Grey Lady. But no. Those writers still do the bidding of the Messiah in the White House and The New York Times is beyond serious in arming its readers with pitch forks and torches as it eagerly sends its virtual mob out in search of the conservative monster. (It should be noted -- again predictably -- that the equally left-wing Washington Post initiated its own Sarah Palin email witch hunt)
Maybe next, The New York Times will ask its readers to become informants against their neighbors or even family members. "Tell us," the next New York Times headline might read, "who is not using "green" light bulbs, who is not driving a hybrid vehicle, who is sending their children to charter schools, who just ate at McDonald's, and who especially on your block or in your neighborhood, still believes in traditional values."
That headline and that request just seems like the next logical step in the New York Times spiraling flight from dignity and into literary dementia.