He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

and make his claims come true.

The evil Rupert Murdoch claims he's not interested in buying The New York Times, but we know better than than, don't we?


Damn right I know better than 'Than. That dude is full on retard.

keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

I thought that was Judy Miller's job.

My mistake.

OH HELL NO

If this happens I will launch an internet campaign myself for NYT readers to outbid him.

OH NOES! Then what will all of the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people read?

bobbette: OH HELL NO

If this happens I will launch an internet campaign myself for NYT readers to outbid him.

I'm in. For what I pay buying it at Starbuck's I can probably afford a few shares...

PJ_the_Barbarian: OH NOES! Then what will all of the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people read?

Your posts, oh wise one.


/jackass

keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

Then hes gonna turn it into a liberal cable news channel.

Better than Thanos?

So will the NYT now be flooded with spam from bands I've never heard of and women "in my area who saw my picture and think I'm cute"?

PJ_the_Barbarian: OH NOES! Then what will all of the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people read?

The Economist, same as always.

/Murdoch makes too much money running down the Times. Why would he kill the goose that he convinces everyone lays golden eggs?

scavenger: Better than Thanos?

The villain from that one Hulk Hogan movie where he was a nanny?

keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

ecmoRandomNumbers: I thought that was Judy Miller's job.

My mistake.

ZING!

Because NEWS Corp is making so much money off the profitability of its other newspapers? Is there some secret revenue streams likely to occur in the futures from newpapers?

Don't go near NEWS stock until there is evidence that there will be no paper acquisitions in the future.

SomeoneDumb: PJ_the_Barbarian: OH NOES! Then what will all of the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people read?

The Economist, same as always.

/Murdoch makes too much money running down the Times. Why would he kill the goose that he convinces everyone lays golden eggs?shiat. I guess I am one of "the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people"

I'ma go hang my head in shame.

Kyro: PJ_the_Barbarian: OH NOES! Then what will all of the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people read?

Your posts, oh wise one.


/jackass


It's okay, there's still the New Yorker and I am pretty sure they're just pretending to be enlightened and sophisticated.

I thought Fox News already had a deal with the Times.



(That must be an old pic; he's lost a lot weight recently.)

PJ_the_Barbarian: shiat. I guess I am one of "the self-proclaimed enlightened and sophisticated white people"

I'ma go hang my head in shame.

Just don't let me catch you so much as glancing at the SF Chronicle

Hopefully he does buy it. Maybe he would finally make it worth reading. The NYT is nothing more than a socialist, propaganda outlet.

It would be a shame if the NY Times were to ever develop a political bias.

No one has to push a myth that the NY Times is a piece of shiat, Schulzburger did that all on his own. It's the DNC newsletter, and people just aren't buying it.

Rockdrummer: No one has to push a myth that the NY Times is a piece of shiat, Schulzburger did that all on his own. It's the DNC newsletter, and people just aren't buying it.

People are buying a lot more of it than most newspapers: it's going to have to trim its sails but it will probably stay in print longer than its competitors.

Semi-Sane: Hopefully he does buy it. Maybe he would finally make it worth reading. The NYT is nothing more than a socialist, propaganda outlet.


Go back under your bridge, troll.

Semi-Sane: Hopefully he does buy it. Maybe he would finally make it worth reading. The NYT is nothing more than a socialist, propaganda outlet.

Even if you're right, it is well-writ propoganda.

Semi-Sane: Hopefully he does buy it. Maybe he would finally make it worth reading. The NYT is nothing more than a socialist, propaganda outlet.

You forgot to blame the joos.

-3

Sir Roderick Ponce von Fontlebottom: It would be a shame if the NY Times were to ever develop a political bias.

Keyboard. You owe me.

H31N0US: Semi-Sane: Hopefully he does buy it. Maybe he would finally make it worth reading. The NYT is nothing more than a socialist, propaganda outlet.

You forgot to blame the joos.

-3

He figured the NYT already had that covered.

he should buy FARK

stockbroker2003: he should buy FARK

Not funny, Drew.

I'd be more worried about Carlos Slim - he's expressed an interest and he could buy and sell Murdoch ten times over - literally.

Rockdrummer: No one has to push a myth that the NY Times is a piece of shiat...

And, yet, if someone did, people such as yourself would believe it, so there's that.

oh come on.

wasn't turning the Wall Street journal into Fox News with CNBC financial advice enough, you twisted sick f*ck?

oh yeah. hold on to that Bear Stearns stock... good idea! yeah...

keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

It is. It's so full of bias it might as well be coming from Keith Olbermann's asshole

xen0blue: keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

It is. It's so full of bias it might as well be coming from Keith Olbermann's asshole

it's not really appropriate to accuse a pundit of bias: blathering on in severely opinionated fashion is what they're paid for.

oh, than! what a silly boy.

I know better than than, but I'll be damned if the rest of these unrefined farks can say the same.

than than

xen0blue: keiverarrow: He's been busy building the myth that the NYT is a piece of shiat for years now, once its reputation is fully in the gutter, he'll try to scoop it up cheap.

It is. It's so full of bias it might as well be coming from Keith Olbermann's asshole

Most intelligent and informed people accept that The Times editorial page is largely occupied by liburl devil worshiping arugula eating baby murdering commie loving socialist America haters.

That doesn't change the fact that their news coverage is still world class. Unlike 90% of the other newspapers in America that just print stories from the wire services, The Times still has actual reporters covering actual news around the world.

logruszed: So will the NYT now be flooded with spam from bands I've never heard of and women "in my area who saw my picture and think I'm cute"?

So not related...but those hookup pop-ups are the most hilarious thing, "Hey cutie, I'm in Canada too. Let's meet up." If it was actually a real person I would respond and tell them to go Dave's house, beside the Burger King. He has 2 Honda's, you can't miss it - it's in Canada.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: That doesn't change the fact that their news coverage is still world class. Unlike 90% of the other newspapers in America that just print stories from the wire services, The Times still has actual reporters covering actual news around the world.

While true, there are many good places to get the news, and not all of them are saddled with more pretentious baggage than a Louis Vuitton store.

Why is he evil? Just because he has money and power? This stupid mindset that money = evil is silly.

Are poor people any more good or happy without money? NO!!

Wealthy people have money because they worked harder to get it than others.

badgercam: Why is he evil? Just because he has money and power? This stupid mindset that money = evil is silly.

Are poor people any more good or happy without money? NO!!

Wealthy people have money because they worked harder to get it than others.

Luck and inheritance have nothing to do with it.

/seriously, I'm all for ending the ridiculous demonization of success, but being rich doesn't automatically make you one of the best people there is any more than it makes you one of the worst.

Die soon, Rupert.

badgercam: Why is he evil? Just because he has money and power? This stupid mindset that money = evil is silly.

Are poor people any more good or happy without money? NO!!

Wealthy people have money because they worked harder to get it than others.

equally silly assumption...
Paris Hilton, GW Bush, John Kerry etc... etc... etc... would like a word with you.

Nonsense. He looks for GOOD investments.

badgercam: Why is he evil? Just because he has money and power? This stupid mindset that money = evil is silly.

Are poor people any more good or happy without money? NO!!

Wealthy people have money because they worked harder to get it than others.

equally silly assumption...
Paris Hilton, GW Bush, John Kerry etc... etc... etc... would like a word with you.

Somebody had to work for the money, ancestors, whatever... Money makes money. It doesn't matter if it's old money or new money.

I'm not making an assumption...

I'm just saying that don't automatically call people evil because they have money and buy things.

badgercam:
Somebody had to work for the money, ancestors, whatever... Money makes money. It doesn't matter if it's old money or new money.

It sure does matter if it's old or new. Or weren't you aware of the pattern of third-generation ownership screwing the pooch?

So Cornelius Vanderbilt or John Rockefeller made something of themselves by having great business sense. I'd respect them for that if they were still alive but it doesn't mean I have to respect their descendants because great granddaddy was such a good businessman that his money's still around.

badgercam: Why is he evil? Just because he has money and power? This stupid mindset that money = evil is silly.

Are poor people any more good or happy without money? NO!!

Wealthy people have money because they worked harder to get it than others.

I think that's a lie the ruling class put out to give the empoverished something to cling onto, so as not to revolt.

NorCalLos: badgercam: Why is he evil? Just because he has money and power? This stupid mindset that money = evil is silly.

Are poor people any more good or happy without money? NO!!

Wealthy people have money because they worked harder to get it than others.

I think that's a lie the ruling class put out to give the empoverished something to cling onto, so as not to revolt.

It's just like when they transformed from old money WASPS to new money professionals. How does the ruling class do it?!