Reporting the news is treason? Really?

I want to KNOW what is going on in the world. Burying your head in the sand does NOT keep FACT from being FACT. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. If the DN only printed what you want to hear, you'd be in the dark (maybe that's what you want).

TREASON is willfully betraying your country (think GWB). Informing the public abut NEWS is PATRIOTIC.

To me, treason is when the US tortures innocent people. To me, treason is when our leaders give us bogus reasons for going to war.
If your idea of treason is standing up to a corrupt government, maybe that's what the US needs right now.

. . . you think the fact that the current administration followed a path that has let AlQaeda regroup and again begin to flourish should just be ignored. Sorry, I don't buy that (especially when one of the candidates in the upcoming presidential election wants to just do more of the same). I think the fact that the administration dropped the ball should have been reported long ago. It's something that we, the public, need to know.

Like "liberal" and "socialism" before it, is "treason" the next word to be abused by the right-wing?

Jean, how can reality be treason? Or are you one of those who believes the "MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED" five years ago.
Either sign up and fight or send your sons over to fight, otherwise your the typical hypocritical repubilcan.

The Times article isn't news. It is commentary disguised as news. The point is that newspapers should report news without giving it a political slant, unless they put it on the editiorial page. The Times is notorious for slanting the news toward it's liberal agenda and using questionable sources, so you you can't trust what you read. Any Times articles included in the DN should just have a disclaimer that says, "Not to be confused with fact or truth, read at your own risk."

This is the last method available to the neo-cons and their supporters: attack the messengers, never the message.

Jean conveniently avoids discussing the issue from the article, because she knows the facts don't back up her argument. So just shout out some jingoistic nonesense. Treason! Meanwhile Al Qaida IS regrouping, re-arming and growing.

But yes, go ahead and bury your head in the sand. If you can't hear or see it, it must not be happening.

The New York Times has always been on the Rush Limbaugh hit list along with the word, Liberal, The Kennedy's, The Clintons, ... blah, blah, blah.

You are right jean the less we know the better we are.

Our government does way to much in secret any of you good mormons ever heard of secret combinations thats what or government is becoming

my opinion is that there is next to nothing that should be kept from we the people.

get rid of terrorists by shinning the light of day on them not having us keep their secretes

I'm sure it would be much better for the Times to declare that the terrorists have been stopped dead in their tracks so we could pump even more money into the war.

Jean Keller's editorial is proof that the DMN will print things just to take up space.
Treason...really? On that same line of thinking making light of things New York is unpatriotic.

We're in real trouble when we start calling news organizations treasonous for printing stories that are critical of our government.

This letter is scary. Truly scary. You may think what you want about the NY Times and their political leanings, but such an established American news organization is surely not actively working to undermine America and hand her over to "the terrorists." And saying we should not be printing news because we don't agree with the politics of the editorial board is the beginning of the end for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and, well, freedom altogether.

Especially on the eve of the 4th of July, I assert that it is this letter to the editor that is treasonous.

Standing up for freedom and justice means also defending those who you may not see eye-to-eye with. Anything less is nothing short of the foundation of tyranny and totalitarianism.

Dem big city foks ain't never gave us nuffin good. I knows that if it come from New York it be evil. It all evil. God bless Amerika.

The reporters/commentators of the New York Times are not going to be paid the $100 mill that Rush is going to bring down for amusing his listeners. I call that treason or at least capitalism gone wild!

If this be treason, make the most of it....

Does Jean really believe that exercising one's first amendment rights is treason? That the New York Times and the DNews should be charged with criminal betrayal for reporting the facts? What country does she think this is? George Orwell wrote several books about you, Jean -- you oughta read them.

This sort of neocon claptrap is big in backwards, backwoods, rednecked Utah (like the Rush Limbaugh radio audience - the biggest in America)
The Bigger Picture would indicate this is no problem for mainstream, normal Americans that are registering in droves to vote Democratic in November.

My, My, My the left wingnuts (Ernest T, and Anon as usual) are in full bloom today.

They say that the NY Times, report the FACTS??????
While at the Same time Dismiss anything the Dnews says, calling something "NEOCON"..

First of all ALL THE MAJOR papers including the NY Times, the LA TIMES and Even the DNews has gone away from Journalism and turned them into poltical slants.

The Newspaper reporters of yester year would be turning over in their graves if they saw how the current crop of reporters slant their stories.

THE TRUE nature of Journalism is to report the news with bias and without a slant. It is up to the PEOPLE to decide what the article means.

No I am not a Hanity or Limbaugh fan, I hate most talk radio. It to slanted (on either side) to one view.

If you want the truth now a days you need to do your research.

There were a couple of assertions made in the comments above, that have me baffled. First, torturing innocent people. Which innocent people are we talking about? Ma 'n Pa Kettle from down the road? Enemy combatants from the war in Afghanistan--innocent??? Second, bogus reasons for going to war. I challenge anybody to make a list of the "bogus" reasons that we went to war in Afghanistan, or Iraq. I don't mean the typical regurgitant of the libs. I mean the facts--cold, hard facts. Then I challenge that person to document who it was--in reality--that perpetrated the bogus information. Remember, I want to see documented facts. And finally, Ernest T. Bass, make me a list of the hypocrtical Republicans that refuse to send their children to war, because every Republican that I know has sent his/her sons to war, or fought in wars--granted, there are many dems that have, also. But I want to see cold, hard, documented facts--not the crap the I typically hear from foul-mouthed neo-libs. I would challenge the DMN to print those well-documented articles in their op-ed section. The challenge is on.

For all you Rush lovers/ NY Times haters the feature article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine is about Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand Rushbo myself, but I found the piece fascinating and well done. I thought it showed him in a positive, upbeat light.

The piece illustrates once again, as it does on a daily basis, why the New York Times, is the second best paper in America (surpassed only by The Deseret News of course!)and still remains the paper of record across this great country and in capitals around the world!

Rush Limbaugh is well-known for his hatred for the #1 read newspaper in America, The New York Times.
He calls it socialistic.
He calls it liberal.
He call it part of "the drive-by media"

How many posters listen to Rush Limbaugh?
(And be honest) Just trying to get to the bottom of the bizarre division today.

If you hate our backwards, backwoods, redneck state . . . move. Why make yourself miserable, when you could be in New York or L.A., basking in the eternal light of liberality, and total honesty of the press (huh??)? There are flights, daily, from KSLC to New York and/or anyother liberal safe-haven in the U.S.

One thing I have learned about right-wing wackos is that they will bury their head as deep as they can in the sand under the guise of not listening to the "liberal" media. What a joke.

Just because many of you seem to want to keep yourself ignorant of reality doesn't mean the rest of us do. If something happened, that makes it news, and reporting it makes it news. If it happens to be unfavorable to Republicans or Neo-Conservatives does not make it any less valuable. If a news outlet covers up the news because it is unfavorable to somebody then that is far more dishonest and "treasonous" then reporting on the truth.

Stephen Colbert said it best: "Reality has a well known liberal bias."

By the way, it doesn't matter if a torture victim - and yes, they are victims - are guilty or not. Torture is NEVER justified! Why can't you right-wing fanatics get that through your heads?

Sorry, but we liberals have infiltrated your Pleasantville aka Third Reich and are not going away. We miss the America we used to know.
We are slowly taking back the ground lost to the neocon ideology. REAL Americans who gave in to the Neocon movement due to us being frightened after 9/11 are now coming together like never before in history. We are your neighbors next door. Your associates at your workplace. Even your brothers and sisters in your wards.
And, as liberals always do, are bringing about reform, change and The Old America that we once knew.

re Bear Rug:

There is no way the things you claim are true. You say that EVERY republican you know has sent a son to war, or fought in one themselves? How many republicans do you know?

And try reading Scott McClellan's book. You'll finds lots of great facts in there. But I am struck by the feeling that "facts" aren't "facts" to you unless you agree with them.

You could support the post girl of conservatism, Anne Coulter, in advocating bombing the New York Times.

If you read and turned off Fuax News you would see that Matt Drudge links out to the New York Times when the Times prints things supporting conservative positions.

12:03pm...thanks again for the cut and paste of the past month. Reform? Change? the Old America? What exactly are we talking about? Got any examples of your thoughts?

During the next 4 years, liberalism will be brought to light and shown the door. With taxes going to be over 50% people will finally start to realize that the government isn't nor has it ever been the answer.

You Rush haters have never listened to him. You know why? because he has a huge audience of liberals; did you know that? The article in the Times about Rush was great.

But that doesn't mean that the NYT doesn't get many things wrong and isn't a liberal newspaper. Liberals are in denial. They think that all news outlets should spout out what they believe. They can't take the truth very well and it shows on these pages each day.

I get a laugh at how mindnumbing the comments are from the libs each day. No facts, no substance; just irrational emotion to make themselves "feel" better.

Anyone looking for facts needn't look to the Times for them because they are wrong too often... Ever see their correction pages? Oops, we're wrong again

The US has tortured people and then released them. Sounds like they were innocent to me...
Example: Asif Iqbal, etc. Look it up.
The VP has (incorrectly) linked Iraq with Afghanistan. Colin Powell was instructed by the VP to pass on the message that Iraq had nukes...a false reason for going to war, since they had no nukes...

Ah, yes. The lovely Anne Coulter.
And her oh, so wonderful books:
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
You can see where our wonderful neocon brothers and sisters in Utah get all their material.
Oh, yeah. Her book claims that several New Jersey wives acted “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them,” and she added that she had “never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
Ah, yes. Another folk hero to our conservative brothers and sisters.

to 12:55

Coulter's books are great. I enjoyed reading them. She has details down for every comment. You know, facts.

Have you read her books? I have yet to see anything proven false from her books.

Care to take a stab?

I'm not at all surprised to hear Charles worships Ann Coulter.
You know the type - you know the individual.

On CNN In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up.

Speaking on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter took aim at the GOP frontrunner, and suggested he was little more than a Republican in name only.

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."

Everyone seems to have missed the real story.

The New York Times reported something as news. It was the responsibility of every newspaper in the Country to report the true facts - including the Deseret News.

Because the Deseret News accepted as truth the story written by the New York Times, the real question that must be asked is why the Deseret News allowed itself to be hoodwinked by another newspaper.

When newspapers just blindly follow each other and accept as "fact" anything printed, they are nothing more than lemmings headed for the cliff.

The Deseret News needs to do better, much, much better.

And that is the real story.

When writing about things military, particularly about things in a war zone where we have over 100,000 soldiers on duty that have first-hand knowledge of the happenings, isn't it just a little bit possible that a reporter could find at least one or two recently returned troops and ask them to substantiate the "facts" as reported by the New York Times?

When reporting about Government programs, wouldn't it be possible to cross-check recipients against provider to verify the "facts"?

When reporting on political candidates, wouldn't it be possible to talk to neighbors, friends, co-workers, family members or disgruntled former friends in addition to the "Press Secretary" to get some background?

Reporting is more than being a parrot. It only seems normal that if you're going to use another paper's story, you ought to substantiate the facts yourself and then report the story as you see it, not as another reporter sees it.

Back in college, my news-writing professor didn't allow sloppy journalism. He didn't care how cleverly we wrote. He just wanted true and accurate reporting. And, he didn't allow us to "copy" anyone else.

I love it! Charles actually read an article in the NY Times! And better yet, he thought it was a good article.

Beware of those that call good evil, and evil good!

"I get a laugh at how mindnumbing the comments are from the libs each day. No facts, no substance; just irrational emotion to make themselves 'feel' better."

Conservatives do this just as much. That street doesn't run one-way.

Another great letter. Truth to a liberal is like a cross to a vampire.

I think jokesters Alex and Willie might be in for a big surprise in November when the pure power of liberalism will set the country back on track again.

to 3:31...well, it was an article that wasn't on the opinion page or the front pages. And the sports section is often quite good as well to read.

did you read it yet? I'm sure you are sure it was full of lies right?

Liberal need to be kinder. Conservative need Rush's emotionalism to comiserate about being victimized. Liberals expect them to pay for schools, roads and wars.

Conservative deserve a free ride.

I listened to Rush. I stoped because he kept insulting my intelligence. If you don't have anything to be installed, fine.

I don't take kindly to anyone telling me what not to read. I read Vietnam Vets against McCain, Drudge and many conservatives. I need humor too!