MARILYN PENN: THE OLD GRAY PAPPARAZZA….SEE NOTE PLEASE
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2011/11/28/the-old-gray-papparazza/?print=1
THE NYTIMES HATES RONALD LAUDER SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE IS A REPUBLICAN, A CONSERVATIVE, A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS (THE MAJOR UMBRELLA GROUP OF JEWISH FRATERNAL AND PHILANTHROPIC ASSOCIATIONS) AN EARLY BENEFACTOR OF THE SHALEM CENTER (RIGHT) IN ISRAEL AND A PROPONENT OF JEWISH RIGHTS TO AN UNDIVIDED JERUSALEM…..THEY GREATLY PREFER THE SOROS TYPE…..RSK
Let it not go unrecorded that the New York Times did respect the mourning period for Evelyn Lauder before launching a front page non-story about how the Lauder Family shelters its enormous wealth. Even the Times had enough dignity to think twice after raking in all that money from paid obituary notices and full page ads in memory of the woman who put breast cancer front and center on the philanthropic map.
No, the Lauders haven’t done anything illegal or corrupt; yes, they have taken advantage of the all the ways our government provides for people to get deductions and manage their businesses and estates, much the same as the Sulzberger, Soros, Kennedy and Clinton families undoubtedly have. Though the Times may not have hacked in to anyone’s cell phone to get this information, the front page huge and brooding headshot of Ronald Lauder in front of his 135 million dollar Klimt comes from the same management directives as any Murdoch tabloid: make the subject look powerful, ominous and suspiciously evil…..
From its publication of the Pentagon Papers to the Julian Assange WikiLeaks reports, the Times has never shirked an opportunity to expose sensitive material under the selective mantle of freedom of the press. Of course they hid from that same obligation when it came to publishing the very newsworthy Danish cartoons that spoofed Mohammed and Islam causing riots, death threats and violence throughout the world. Why, you may wonder, was a billionaire family the biggest story on yesterday’s front page?
There was no Occupy Wall Street story in yesterday’s news – what better way to bring it to mind than by showing the excessive extravagance and clever manipulations of some wealthy Jewish Republican 1 percenters? Note the adverb in this sentence, “Mr. Lauder has aggressively taken advantage of tax breaks that are useful only for the most affluent.” Why is availing yourself of a legal opportunity characterized as aggressive? If David Kocieniewski, the stalwart reporter who covered the dangerous Mr. Lauder, deducts the cost of his travel and entertainment in the course of doing his job, is that aggressive too?
The ads inside the most prominent pages of the Times are all for 1 percenters: Chanel handbag, Harry Winston watch, Tiffany diamonds, Wempe jewelry, Saks Fifth Avenue clothing, Cadillac cars. The restaurants that the Times reviews are usually the most expensive; tickets for theater and special events that the Times covers and highlights have reached stratospheric heights that are similarly geared to the wealthy. Entire sections such as Style, Home and Dining are often nothing more than yuppie broadsheets while Entertainment is often the print version of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. So it comes as a joke that the front page of the paper appears to be biting the hand that feeds its advertising and buys its dwindling subscriptions. Those of us who object to intrusion and smear tactics used to pillory law abiding citizens under the pretense of investigative reporting can choose to get our news from the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that doesn’t suffer from the same identity crisis as the old gray limousine liberal. The Times will soon discover that Occupy Wall Streeters don’t buy its paper – they retrieve it from its increasingly appropriate repositories – the trash cans.
Comments are closed.
