Speakeasy forum

General discussion

NYT's shareholders might want to hold them accountable

by Evie / June 24, 2006 12:29 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: NYT's shareholders might want to hold them accountable
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: NYT's shareholders might want to hold them accountable
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
and that
by Mark5019 / June 24, 2006 12:42 AM PDT

would be good hit these media in there pockets.

Collapse -
Well at least we know who is willing to sell out their
by Kiddpeat / June 24, 2006 12:49 AM PDT

country in the name of greed. All they want, it seems, is a continuation of their big paychecks, and their unchecked power. We all know what this kind of power does to the people and organization who wield it.

Collapse -
But they aren't even making money off of it!
by Evie / June 24, 2006 1:04 AM PDT

Their stock is tanking. How come we don't hear about the salaries and perks for those responsible for taking it down the tubes?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Their cause is just! All is forgiven in pursuit of the cause
by Kiddpeat / June 24, 2006 2:15 AM PDT

Just like Big Bill getting continued support from feminist organizations.

A liberal in full hue and cry can't be greedy! Can they? They wouldn't play an endgame would they?

The stockholders deserve what they get.

Collapse -
american stakeholders might want to hold
by WOODS-HICK / June 24, 2006 4:41 PM PDT

the current administration accountable. the nyt did not leak the details. they reported the details that were leaked. this is 'blame the media 101'. the leak must have come from justice, treasury or one of the three branches of government. it has to be someone who is working for the government. the entity that leaked, not reported, the details could have posted it on numerous websites. terrorists have computers. news outlets are not law enforcement, that is under the justice department. the responsibility to stop leaks lies with the administration, not reporters.

if the details came from outside our government, it has to be an entity aiding our governments efforts. they also fall under the responsibility of our government. the results are the same; someone leaks, someone reports or someone posts on websites. the administration is responsible for the incompetence of the entities involved. imbo

Collapse -
Makes no difference how they got the info
by Steven Haninger / June 24, 2006 8:47 PM PDT

If a briefcase with "Top Secret" all over it was found on a subway train, that's not blanket permission to scan an publish the contents as some sort of scoop. While members of the press don't receive government background checks and training in handling of classified information, it should be common sense for any US citizen that something should not be spread around. The media is not exempted...in fact, IMO, they should be doubly aware that their position if distributing information requires a certain amount of discretion...and that amount is large.

Collapse -
classified = classified
by C1ay / June 24, 2006 10:53 PM PDT

Leaked info does not declassify it and publishing classified information is a crime. Leaking it is a crime too but that does not excuse the crime of publishing. We probably don't know exactly who leaked this info but there is no doubt at all as to who published it....

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) So why aren't they being prosecuted?
by Diana Forum moderator / June 25, 2006 12:04 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) they should be
by Mark5019 / June 25, 2006 12:09 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It could happen.
by EdH / June 25, 2006 12:16 AM PDT
Collapse -
If they tried to prosecute
by JP Bill / June 25, 2006 12:20 AM PDT

It would become retroactively "declassified"

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) ?
by EdH / June 25, 2006 12:21 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That makes no sense.
by Evie / June 25, 2006 1:12 AM PDT
Collapse -
I know you and Ed know what it is a reference to,
by duckman / June 25, 2006 1:14 AM PDT

as we discussed it at the last Pack meeting. And for the last time, DON'T bring pets. I'll never get that stain out

Collapse -
Now, now ...
by Evie / June 25, 2006 1:30 AM PDT

... you know darned well that my cockapoo was perfectly well behaved.

(bIN_go points finger at ToG0)

Evie Happy

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Togo doesn't have any pets.
by EdH / June 25, 2006 1:39 AM PDT
In reply to: Now, now ...
Collapse -
That's a question for the prosecutor...
by C1ay / June 25, 2006 12:21 AM PDT

I suspect he/she might begin with, "Can we prove the the publishing editor knew the information was classified?" It's like the whole "Bush lied" mantra. Bush only lied if he knew it was a lie. As long as he was led to believe that what he was told was the truth then he couldn't have lied. If the publishing editor was denied the fact that what he/she was publishing then it would be hard to specifically prosecute them for violating national security. That classified information appeared in the paper is proof that a crime was committed but I'm not sure that's enough to convict any specific individual Sad

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) NYT published it for all to see. That was their choice.
by Kiddpeat / June 24, 2006 11:51 PM PDT
Collapse -
other papers published the story
by alwayssomething / June 25, 2006 2:12 AM PDT

why focus on the nyt? I think the people who leaked the details of the program should be the overriding issue. the justice department is not capable of securing information or catching the perpetrators. I do not see the outcry here regarding that issue. should we sell our savings bonds?

Collapse -
By all means, prosecute the traitors who leak...
by EdH / June 25, 2006 2:18 AM PDT

as well as the NYT which "broke" the story.

Collapse -
you have the right answer
by alwayssomething / June 25, 2006 2:27 AM PDT

focus on all fronts. the 'inside' source is the most important. currently our ship of state is very porous. we can not be distracted by 'red snappers'.

Collapse -
Maybe if they go after the reporters/papers ...
by Evie / June 25, 2006 2:31 AM PDT

... they'll flip on their sources to avoid time in shackles Wink

Collapse -
No, I'd rather see
by duckman / June 25, 2006 2:36 AM PDT

"principled" reporters get their bcs's. The criminal investigation will most likely get the source any way.

Collapse -
It's not just this story ...
by Evie / June 25, 2006 2:26 AM PDT

... look at the stock price of the NYT over the last 5 years of Bush bashing reporting. I think the LA Times is having similar problems. The American people aren't buying the dreck.

Collapse -
those papers do have 1 good thing
by Mark5019 / June 25, 2006 2:27 AM PDT

i use them to line snake cages:)

Collapse -
Hubby occasionally gets the NYT for free at work ...
by Evie / June 25, 2006 2:32 AM PDT

... I used it to start fires in the fireplace, and for painting.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
I believe it is because
by alwayssomething / June 25, 2006 2:34 AM PDT

there are so many free outlets. it is not the content of one source. newcomers to the news business will only see their ratings rise or go away. they did start at zero. that is the essence of a free market, vote with your wallet

Collapse -
All the more reason for the NYT ...
by Evie / June 25, 2006 2:54 AM PDT

... etc. to be accountable to their shareholders (e.g. those who invest in their product) to make every effort to retain readers and even recruit new ones. Bush bashing doesn't seem to have been profitable for all that have tried it except Michael Moore.

Collapse -
maybe not
by WOODS-HICK / June 25, 2006 2:41 PM PDT

but reporting bush bashing has made fortunes. it is easy; sell the stock, just like any savvy investor does. unless the stock loss is intentionally formulated by the company, it's the investors fault if they do not sell. there are no guarantees on wall street. caveat emptor, makes sense here.

Collapse -
I don't own it
by Evie / June 25, 2006 9:01 PM PDT
In reply to: maybe not

Neither do a lot of other people that perhaps used to. Missing the point of my thread.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!