Forthcoming: Two Washington Times Exposes

[Cell Whitman]

Note: the Washington Times has never been anything more than Moon's propaganda unit designed to move the nation right politically. At the same time Moon funded individuals and created fronts to move the nation toward his vision of a theocratic right-wing(read: Fascist) America. Moon sees America as a toy which he has had to manipulate to reach the world. An Americanized theocracy has always been Moon's goal and as you can see, though he didn't do it by himself, he has been wildly successful.

One thing is for sure, the idea that the WT is somehow "independent" of Moon's plans has always been a huge crock.

Here's a little bit on that:

http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/2004/10/independent-washington-times.html

_____

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/newspapers/forthcoming_two_washington_times_exposes_33598.asp

Forthcoming: Two Washington Times Exposes

Could 2006 be the year that sinks the Washington Times? Bill Sammon recently jumped ship to join the Washington Examiner and the paper continues to hemorrhage money. Further, two former W. Timers are working on pieces that will open the curtain on what takes place behind the scenes at the Washington Times, and from my conversations with both of them, it sounds as if some damning information could potentially emerge as a result.

First there is George Archibald, who was with the Times for 23 years and who left in December. He is currently in Arizona, working on a book about his time at the Times, tentatively titled "Journalism is War" (a phrase used by Managing Editor Francis Booth Coombs, Archibald's national editor for many years). Archibald has a shelf full of interesting (some scandalous, some not) stories about the Times but the question is how much will actually make it into his book.

....

"I do not like bigots and there is some bigotry that I will talk about," Archibald says. Archibald has other stories (which he may or may not include in the book) about suspiciously canned stories, tempers, egos, poor leadership from the top and the Washington Times purported losses of $2.5 billion over the years.

His book has already caused some tension at W. Times HQ. Coombs has ordered employees not to speak with Archibald, claiming that, in fact, Archibald's book is a hit job.

It is Archibald's belief that many seasoned and veteran reporters at the Times have left the paper or been pushed out "because of Coombs ill-tempered micro-management of reporters and repeated changes to their copy without consultation with the reporters, often for apparent ideological, political or other reasons at the behest of senior editors."

....
(But another W. Timer, however, told us that Coombs' ascendancy is not a foregone conclusion, even though Pruden has said it publicly in a TV interview. The owners were not happy with Pruden's presumption and took him to the woodshed over that and he apologized to the company pres ident, Douglas Joo. Tony Blankley, the editorial page editor is definitely a candidate for the editor-in-chief position when Wes retires and Coombs is not a shoo-in by any means.)

...
Then there is Robert Redding Jr., who left the paper this year.

Redding left on the 3rd of February after two and a half years at the Times and dived head first into Redding Communications, Inc.

He's not quite ready to reveal too much of his poker hand about his experiences at the Washington Times, but he is considering writing some pieces about it.

"I am working on a more in-depth response to that question," Redding said. "Ultimately there is a story to tell there...I wish the Times all the best."

...

But is there more there? Redding seems to share Archibald's belief that the Times brass creates a difficult newsroom environment. "There are a lot of disgruntled people that work in and have worked for that company...Clearly the Times is in a very competitive media market where they aren't able to pay top dollar for the top talent they have. What's more, they are a newspaper with a management team that I don't think always understands the value of its staff. And that might be a reason that a few people, like George Archibald, are considering memoirs or writings or musings."

...

"There's a culture in newsrooms that if you don't look like the person who manages you, then you are not valued as much, you're not seen as being useful. There are not a lot of black men in newsrooms and especially in print newsrooms across the country because they don't want them there. Period. And that's not specific to the Times. It's a lot of newspapers."

This is likely not the last we'll hear from these two.

[blm]

1. I hope so, mw - but the rest of the media sure helps Moon stay covered up

no matter how offensive his actions. Hell, they barely noted when RevMoon was focking CROWNED in the US Senate Building, fer chrissakes.

[Cell Whitman]

2. Bill Sammon is decepetive worm - from Rolling Stone

I am sure he will be missed at the WT...

this is an old article and a must read for anyone who hasn't - one to stuff in the wingnut's faces. It shows how they have been manipulated - like a cult.

from Dec 2001

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore/?rnd=1141934164015&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872

One month after formally kicking off his presidential campaign, Vice President Al Gore paddled down the Connecticut River in New Hampshire on July 22nd, 1999, spreading his green theme of protecting the environment and pausing for a photo op. His message was quickly drowned out, though, when the Washington Times' Bill Sammon reported that local authorities had granted Gore a special favor when they released nearly 4 billion gallons of water from a nearby dam into the drought-stricken river in order to keep the vice president's boat afloat.

The price tag on the spilled water was quickly calculated at $7 million. The implication was clear: In a clumsy abuse of power, Al Gore, a supposed friend of the environment, gladly wasted precious natural resources to stage-manage a political event.

Following the lead of the Washington Times, an unabashedly conservative outlet often hostile to Democrats, the rest of the mainstream press pounced, not only upbraiding Gore for his supposed hypocrisy but also suggesting that the campaign miscue was just the latest example of a foundering presidential run. The New York Times detailed the "mishap," the Washington Post ridiculed Gore's FOUR BILLION GALLONS FOR A PHOTO OP, Newsweek dubbed it the "photo op from hell," and CNN covered the "wave of criticism after floodgates are opened on a New Hampshire river to keep Al Gore afloat."

In retrospect, the most notable thing about the whole story was just how murky the facts were. Nobody from the Gore campaign asked for the water to be released. (Concerned about security, the Secret Service did.) As for the amount of water released, it was 500 million gallons, not 4 billion - a fact that Sammon reported a week later, long after other media ran with the original story. And the local utility company that operates the dam was already dumping millions of gallons of water into the parched Connecticut River every day. The routine release had simply been moved up a couple of hours to accommodate Gore's trip. The $7 million figure turned out to be completely inaccurate, since the water was not wasted. Instead, it passed through hydroelectric turbines and generated power that the utility company sold to other utilities.

"I felt like we'd fallen through the looking glass," says Sharon Francis, executive director of the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, who coordinated Gore's visit on behalf of the region and for days fielded press queries about the derided canoe trip. She describes the media coverage as "fictional" and "nasty" and "spun to sound like something corrupt."

Two years later, Sammon defends his work, insisting that the incident makes "a point about Gore's political reflexes, to spin furiously and resort to deception."

Those are two things the D.C. press corps knows plenty about.

...more

[Doctor_J]

3. The RW usually finds it acceptible to swallow losses like this

to get their propaganda out. Murdoch used to pay cable compaines to air Faux News because it was worth it to catapult his lies. If, like other WH organs, the Times is being paid by the cons, I see no big revelation here.

[Cell Whitman]

4. The “Times” is NOT funded by “cons”

It is completely funded by Sun Myung Moon who is not a conservative - he is delusional cult leader who has openly stated his desire to “subjugate the American government and population.” That means drive us right and theocratic in Moon lingo.

The BILLIONS he has spent on the Washington "never made a dime in 24 years" Times is the single biggest subsidy to conservative – make that - hard right wing fascist politics in our nation’s history. Unlike Murdoch, who at least went through the motions and became a citizen, Moon isn’t even a citizen.

Maybe you haven’t noticed but the paper is the voice of the right wing and is quoted by Rush and all more than any other publication. It is hugely influential around the world. It is the paper which has been kicking liberals in the nuts for 24 years. IT is not “conservative” that is a fraud; it is Moon’s organ meant to manipulate our nation and in case you haven’t looked around lately, it has worked.

If people at the W Times are jumping ship and going to talk that isn't "big" it is huge.

Did you even read the pre-note to the post? Do you have any idea what you are talking about or do you just take a snide slap at people’s posts for the hell of it?

Try reading something about Moon and his efforts - he has as much to do with stealing your democracy as anyone.

Here’s a couple places to start…

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9868

http://www.cellwhitman.blogspot.com

[Doctor_J]

5. Yawn

moon is pals with the other GOP religious nuts. If you don't consider him part of the same cabal that saddled us with * and the right-wing congress for the last 6 years, where have you been? I'd be astonished if he's not getting money from Rove to run propaganda. If he's not a conservative, why do Limpballs and the rest of the democacy haters quote him weekly? You say "he's not a conservative" and then "he's stealing your democracy" as if being a con and being an enemy of democracy are mutually exclusive - by my lights they go together like Smirk and Jack Daniels.

And when a post deserves a snide slap, I am happy to volunteer.

[Cell Whitman]

6. You still haven't read any of this have you?

I am saying he is beyond a "con" he made the whole thing possible for them.

Try reading.

Rove is a pimple on Moon's ass, he eats people like him for breakfast. He know more cares what Rove wants than my left nut. He cares even less about Bush.

I am saying and anyone who takes the time to read rather thann bloviate knows that Moon is BEYOND Rove, would piss Bush out in a second.



You don't have a clue what you are talking about but keep rambling about.

[chieftain]

7. It is appalling how influential Moon and Murdock have

been over the past decade. To have these malevolent foreigners shaping public opinion to the extent they have has been a crime. And to the surprise of no one here, the corporate media has not commented on it at all. Serious journalists( if the breed still exists)should have exposed this long ago. I eagerly look forward to these books. Thanks for bringing them to our attention.