Military Newspapers: Rumsfeld Must Go!

maineman

maineman

Banned
The Army Times, the Navy Times, the Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times will all come out on Monday with an editorial calling for the immediate resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

I have had a subscription to Navy Times for a quarter of a century and there is no more conservative pro-administration periodical in the land.

How do the neocons spin this??????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/
 
Bush says rummy's doing a great job, and he's going to keep him through the rest of his term.
 
where are all the neocons proclaiming that the Army Times is just another rag of the ultra liberal controlled zionist media?
 
The Army Times is just another liberal arm of the Zionist controlled ultra liberal American media.
 
Yes, unfortunately, it is true. During the last years of Vietnam, when the chant throughout the enlisted ranks was FTA; the Army Times was nothing more than a Commie pinko rag of the wildest and brightest hue that regularly published the condemned and banned writings Of Father Ho Chi Minh!!!!!!
 
Just because the military has access to a newspaper does not mean what is written is what they believe.
 
Damocles said:
Tell me Maineman... Who owns these newspapers?
Click to expand...


Something called the Genat company. Or the Jenet company. I don't know how to spell it, but I do know how to pronounce it. The reason I know how to pronounce it is that 57 republicans were on tv today saying it.

I guess you got the memo, so you probably know how to spell it.

So since it isn't written by the military, but its audience is primarily the military, then Mainman is right and it's a liberal rag. They probably sell a lot of papers because military people are well known for patronizing liberal rags.
 
Damocles said:
Just because the military has access to a newspaper does not mean what is written is what they believe.
Click to expand...

The military has access to all newspapers. That's not the question.

The military is the prime audience, and prime consumers of this newspaper.
 
Darla said:
The military has access to all newspapers. That's not the question.

The military is the prime audience, and prime consumers of this newspaper.
Click to expand...
It is specifically only made available to the military. Once again, they have no control over what is written.

I am not saying that the military wouldn't like to see Rumsfeld go, just that 4 newspapers owned by the exact same group, not a military group, saying the exact same thing are not the sum total of what the military might think.
 
Damocles said:
It is specifically only made available to the military. Once again, they have no control over what is written.

I am not saying that the military wouldn't like to see Rumsfeld go, just that 4 newspapers owned by the exact same group, not a military group, saying the exact same thing are not the sum total of what the military might think.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty good indication of Rumsfeld's standing with the troops.

I really don't care what happens to Rumsfeld, but I think it's become pretty apparent that he's not the most popular guy with the soldiers, or the most respected guy with the officers.

I'm not a person who believes that getting rid of Rumsfeld would change or solve anything. He's an idiot, but he's got too much company for his removal to mean anything.
 
damo...the audience of these papers is the military. period. I have NEVER seen anyone who is not or was not in the military reading Navy/Army/Air Force/Marine Corps Times.

So.... let's make a hypothetical parallel situation here: what if there were a series of evangelical newspapers that catered ONLY to religious groups.... God Squad Times..Jesus Freak Times....Holyroller Times..... End of Times Times.... how long do you think that those newspapers would keep selling if they published editorials advocating the legalization of gay marriage or abortion or marijuana?

The fact is...the Navy Times is in every wardroom of every ship in the Navy...every Chief's Mess...every Acey-Duecy Lounge. If the subject of that editorial was so offensive to the military reader, how long before all those subscriptions would be cancelled.

No one is saying that these are government publications. They ARE written for military personnel and they have a pretty pro-government, pro-military stance. It is one thing for the New York Times to call for RUmmy's resignation. It is another thing altogether when the Army Times does.
 
maineman said:
damo...the audience of these papers is the military. period. I have NEVER seen anyone who is not or was not in the military reading Navy/Army/Air Force/Marine Corps Times.

So.... let's make a hypothetical parallel situation here: what if there were a series of evangelical newspapers that catered ONLY to religious groups.... God Squad Times..Jesus Freak Times....Holyroller Times..... End of Times Times.... how long do you think that those newspapers would keep selling if they published editorials advocating the legalization of gay marriage or abortion or marijuana?

The fact is...the Navy Times is in every wardroom of every ship in the Navy...every Chief's Mess...every Acey-Duecy Lounge. If the subject of that editorial was so offensive to the military reader, how long before all those subscriptions would be cancelled.

No one is saying that these are government publications. They ARE written for military personnel and they have a pretty pro-government, pro-military stance. It is one thing for the New York Times to call for RUmmy's resignation. It is another thing altogether when the Army Times does.
Click to expand...
Just because that is the audience doesn't mean that the newspapers are not all owned by the exact same people, sending the exact same message. What are the other papers saying? What about Stars and Stripes?

And just because the newspapers are not made available to outside the military, doesn't mean that they speak for rather than to the military.

Maineman, simply... If I own 4 newspapers and write the same thing in all 4 is it really all that shocking? Does it mean that the people who read it think the same way?
 
like I said, if those four papers wrote editorials that were universally disagreed with by their readers, if they didn't put voice to the concerns of their readers, they would cease to exist. I am aware that all four of them are owned by the same folks....

and clearly they don't speak FOR the military, but if they spoke AGAINST the military's perceived interests, they would not continue to have the faithful following they have always had.
 
and if you refuse to acknowledge the quantum difference in magnitude between the New York Times calling for Rummy's resignation and the Army Times calling for his resignation, then you have too much fucking koolaid in ya for us to be able to chat about this point any further.
 
maineman said:
like I said, if those four papers wrote editorials that were universally disagreed with by their readers, if they didn't put voice to the concerns of their readers, they would cease to exist. I am aware that all four of them are owned by the same folks....

and clearly they don't speak FOR the military, but if they spoke AGAINST the military's perceived interests, they would not continue to have the faithful following they have always had.
Click to expand...
LOL. If I read editorials in both Colorado Papers promoting gay marriage (did) and they were likely to lose by 75% in the vote (are) then I am supposed to presume that the readership thinks the same way that the editorials say? Come on... It defies all logic. It is basically one paper (owned by the exact same people with the same editorial appearing in all of them) putting an editorial in them. This isn't what the military thinks, well it may be what the people in the military think, but it sure isn't evidence that they think that way any more than it is evidence that Colorado thinks like the two Colorado newspapers wrote in their editorial.

No matter how much I may wish that Colorado would vote as the editorials say.
 
maineman said:
and if you refuse to acknowledge the quantum difference in magnitude between the New York Times calling for Rummy's resignation and the Army Times calling for his resignation, then you have too much fucking koolaid in ya for us to be able to chat about this point any further.
Click to expand...
If you refuse to admit that it is the same as one newspaper that they read saying this, not all of them by a long shot. And that it has about the same relevance to what the military thinks as the Colorado papers had to what Colorado thinks above, then your "yellow dog" glasses became opaque and you can no longer see through them.
 
maineman said:
like I said, if those four papers wrote editorials that were universally disagreed with by their readers, if they didn't put voice to the concerns of their readers, they would cease to exist. I am aware that all four of them are owned by the same folks....

and clearly they don't speak FOR the military, but if they spoke AGAINST the military's perceived interests, they would not continue to have the faithful following they have always had.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I think it very likely that they reflect the current prevailing opinion of the majority of their audience. And it's not like there isn't any other evidence that this is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top