You know, it's been fun (in a gruesome sort of way, of course) slamming the New York Times for its recent disclosures that harm our national security, but with the talk of withdrawing White House press credentials, and boycotts, and cancelling subscriptions, how about if we who blog just ignoring the Times?
Heck, they already put some of their columnists behind their fire wall, depriving us of this target-rich environment (and this isn't just a reference to Frank Rich, may he rot in obscurity). How many bloggers live poorer lives because Maureen Dowd is safely beyond their reach?
Let's just go all the way and stop linking and commenting on them completely. Heck, I've made my point often enough--I don't like the New York Times. Is yet another post about how the Times seems to hate America going to do anything but bounce the rubble? And the few good elements of the paper, like Mr. Burns who lives for covering foreign stories with integrity, might just go elsewhere if enough people with real traffic just ignore the Times.
So I, a small blogger who got a lot of ranting mileage out of the New York Times (and I've gotten traffic from links from the Times), hereby vow not to link to the New York Times until that paper decides it has a stake in America winning the Long War.
I realize that Hell may freeze over sooner than that.
UPDATE: Heh. Ok, this is pretty funny. Received the following email:
How dare you? WE are due our links. You won't survive without US!! You link to US or face extinshun! WE are the EDITORS of the NYT. What do you know, you pipsqueak!?
It linked to this single-post blog. As a bonus, the post appears to pre-date my post it links to by several weeks! This really is the MSM!
I've never inspired a blog before to my knowledge. I just always kind of assumed if I did it would involve Swedish models ...
