Telling the story from our point of view

Blog Archive

November 02, 2005

Is NYT's owner a crossdresser?

The New York Times is undoubtedly the most liberal and prohomosexual, not to mention influential print news publication in America. Here's a little history behind its owner/Chairman, who "revels in discussing homosexuality".

Before the founder of the New York Times died in 1935, the newspaper had already been seized by Arthur Hays Sulzberger, a handsome bachelor who gained complete control of the privately owned company by simply marrying the only child of Mr. Ochs. As a result, Mr. Ochs suffered a series of nervous breakdowns. He wished to leave the newspaper in his Will to his nephew, a conservative like himself, but his daughter thwarted her loving father, who died of a broken heart and without a plan. (A radical/liberal feminist, the daughter suffered from dyslexia, was usually ignored by her family and was taught by “progressive” or “radical” professors at nearby Columbia University.)

Upon gaining control in 1933 when Mr. Ochs stopped coming to the office, Sulzberger immediately changed the direction of the Times and used its powerful voice to join those individuals who were independently supporting the Russian dictator, Joseph Stalin, who was starving five million or more independent Ukrainian farmers who were resisting Communist plans to collectivize the farmers in this “bread-basket” of Russia.

Sulzberger instructed his reporter in Russia, Walter Duranty, to add the powerful voice of the Times to the individuals who were trying to protect and support Stalin, such as the famous English playwright George Bernard Shaw and the black American singer, Paul Robeson.

What we’re witnessing today is a disastrous fight within the Sulzberger family. Pinch is battling all his ancestors, including his father. Pinch says they were all homophobes. He is not inaccurate in that statement. Pinch’s grandmother was the mother of Pinch’s father, Punch Sulzberger, who could not read the paper because of his dyslexia but was Chairman for 34 years. She was so extreme in her dislike of homosexuals that she prevented the Times from providing any dialogue or leadership when psychiatrists, artists, etc. began to change their views.

Meanwhile, Pinch is apparently not overtly homosexual (with a wife and children), but he revels in discussing homosexuality with many friends who dress in women’s clothes. This has been explained fully by us many times and can be found in our free Archives or in Atty. Pawlick’s book, “Libel by New York Times.”

  • source
  • More on Sulzberger's sins

    Anonymous said...

    Dude, what up with all the homophobia? Christ would have a field day with your hatred, you know.

    DL Foster said...

    Please read my post Top 10 Myths
    That should answer your questions.

    And this post is about the NYT, not my so-called "homophobia". Take note of that.

    Ezra said...

    Could you please provide me a logical reason why you do not support homosexual rights in the law? And about the NYT, don't believe everything you read. And frankly, you blog does seem a bit hateful, whether on purpose or not.

    DL Foster said...

    thanks for your question.

    I support basic human rights for all people.
    -the right to have a job
    -the right to live where you want
    -the right to congregate in public
    -the right to exercise your political beliefs
    -the right to receive appropriate justice when wronged
    etc, etc

    Now, your source logic may be different from mine. Nevertheless, answering you is difficult because you didnt specify what you mean by "homosexual rights in the law". Explain that and perhaps I can respond.

    2. I've asked this over and over to the freshman critics who float in here and acuse me or the blog of being (gasp!) hateful: please define "hate".

    3. Is there something wrong about the history of Pinch Salzberger?
    Did I leave something out?

    Anonymous said...

    Did you write this article or is it taken from MassNews? I ask because the first sentence of the second paragraph is blatantly false. The New York Times was founded on September 18, 1851 by Henry Jarvis Raymond and George Jones. Raymond was also a founding director of the Associated Press in 1856. Adolph Ochs acquired the Times in 1896.

    Additionally, MassNews is a self-admitting right wing newspaper founded by a well known anti-homosexual, Edward Pawlick. If anyone "revels in discussing homosexuality" it is Pawlick who can't seem to get away from the subject.

    I will agree that the New York Times prints a disproportional amount of liberal editorials but does the editorial page reflect upon the ability of the paper to report news unbiased? You might think so and I'd like to hear your take.

    DL Foster said...

    Blantantly false?
    Adolph S. Ochs School. The Foundation maintains a special relationship with this Manhattan elementary school, P.S. 111, named for the publisher who founded the modern New York Times in 1896.

    Adolph Ochs was born March 12, 1858 in Cincinnati, Ohio and died April 8, 1935.
    Today The New York Times is probably the most prominent American daily newspaper, sometimes being referred to as America's "newspaper of record". It has traditionally printed full transcripts of major speeches and debates. The newspaper is currently owned by The New York Times Company, in which descendants of [Adolph] Ochs, principally the Sulzberger family, maintain a dominant role.

    Technically, Ochs was not the "founder", however it was "under his guidance that the Times achieved its international scope, circulation and reputation", according to Wilkipedia. Additionally, the NYTCO recoginizes Ochs as "founder". See reference above.

    Your charges of the writing as blatantly false based on one (1) word is over the top.

    Click on "source" to see where the article originated.

    DL Foster said...

    I will agree that the New York Times prints a disproportional amount of liberal editorials but does the editorial page reflect upon the ability of the paper to report news unbiased? You might think so and I'd like to hear your take.

    Unfortunately what most Americans are fed is the stuff from the talking shoe boxes who populate the pages of liberal newspapers. For instance, if an editorial from the NYT is for "gay" marriage, then it is automatically assumed the NYTimes is for gay marriage. Regardless of the other alleged unbiased news, the paper becomes synonymous with its "editorial page". Personally, I dont read the Times or any of the flagship liberal mouthpieces. Sometimes they may have a story of interest but thats about it. I suspect liberals feel the same way about conservative news sources. That's America.

    Ezra said...

    What I mean by homosexual rights in the law is basically homosexual rights. Do you believe that they should have rights and if so should their rights be restricted? And why?
    Hate - To feel hostility or animosity toward; To feel dislike or distaste for. Purposeful or not, it does seem to take a hateful tone to it.
    I never said that you wrote anything wrong in the article but do not believe everything you read. And keep in mind that on Wikipedia the articles are written by people and are sometimes biased.

    DL Foster said...

    What I mean by homosexual rights in the law is basically homosexual rights.

    If they are American citizens, they already have every right afforded by law to American citizens.What else did you want them to have?

    Hate - To feel hostility or animosity toward; To feel dislike or distaste for.
    I can't go to heaven if I hate people. Sorry, don't have time for that. However, exposing lies, hypocrisy and manipulation is a worthwhile and admirable vocation. It actually saves people from a lot of danger by providing informational choices. If you choose to see that as falling within your definition of hate --perceived or real-- then youre free to exercise your thinking rights.

    Anonymous said...

    Big difference between the New York Times and MassNews buddy. Read the headlines on the homepage of their website. The New York Times editorials are buried deep inside the paper. MassNews purposely fills their front page with inflammatory headlines designed to appeal to the right. Real newspapers do not do this.

    DL Foster said...

    regardless, buddy.
    The issue or at least the one you raised was whether or not the person listed was the founder of the NYT. As I already pointed out to you (and you ignored), the NYTCO recognizes Adolphus Ochs as a founder. So regardless of the MassNews "inflammatory" headlines, they were not "blatantly false" as you initially claimed.

    Robert said...

    Rev. Foster -
    Here's a 'right' that's been contested in some circles.
    A woman is hired for a job. After several years of satisfactory performance, her employer discovers that she's a lesbian. He fires her. Is this actionable under law (or should it be) as an unfair labor practice? Some say no - that employers should be free to fire employees for this reason.

    Second example - my landlord finds out that I am gay. No complaints from neighbors, no violation of lease stipulations, no late rent payments, but he finds the idea of a 'sodomite' occupying one of his units odious. He evicts me. Does he have that right, or, conversely, does my municipality have the right to enact an ordinance banning such evictions on the grounds of unlawful discrimination?

    These are the sorts of 'rights' that GLBT activists refer to when they ask that sort of question.

    Hope that helps.

    DL Foster said...

    Well, I will respond to the two scenarios you presented Robert and hope they will be accepted as my general response to gay rights. Actually, I guess I am a "case by case" person rather than one who believes all gay rights are good. I don't believe all demands for any "rights" are necessarily good.

    Scenario #1 - The employer should not be able to fire the lesbian simply because she is a lesbian. Now, if she is caught stealing and is fired, she shouldn't play the gay card as revenge. I have worked with out gays and lesbians and would and have defended all their[reasonable] rights as I would have anyone else.

    Scenario #2 - If this is private property (not an apartment,etc)the landlord should be able to evict any tenant for any reason. I believe the law requires some sort of prior notice and time frame, but I would stand with the rights of the property owner. Im against government intervention when it involves the property owner's sovereign rights. I think the case in Atlanta with the Country Club was a perfect example of what Im talking about.

    PS: I am allowing this sideline discussion because I appreciate Ezra's respect in asking it.

    vesti said...

    DL Foster said... 12:45 PM

    DL sometimes asks me why I come to this blog. It's replies like this one.

    Although I would be in favor of a more complete analysis of property rights versus contractual/tenants rights in the second scenario, the point is well taken.

    DL, if you were not capable of such reasoned analysis, I would not ever take issue with your bombastic demagoguery (if that's all you could do, why bother?). Since you are obviously not just a stupid loudmouth, I'm afraid you're stuck with several of the readers and posters here (including myself).

    Ezra said...

    "I can't go to heaven if I hate people. Sorry, don't have time for that." - Look, I never said that you do hate people, I said that some of your writing takes a hateful tone whether purposeful or not.

    "However, exposing lies, hypocrisy and manipulation is a worthwhile and admirable vocation." - Hardly what you do. You state your conservative biasness on the subtitle to your page.

    DL Foster said...

    Im interested in knowing if you have some sort of campaign where you go around the web and point out bias to the blog writers.
    My conservative "bias" is simply my point of view or perspective. If you have a problem with me expressing my perspective, isnt that the worst kind of bias? What did you expect me to state a "liberal" point of view? Or is your problem with anyone states any point of view?

    The great thing about this blog is that sans ad hominem attacks on DL Foster, you are welcome to express an opposing view*. Ezra, here's a news flash baby boy...controversy makes the world go round.

    And with that, Im ending your quest for the holy grail. Any other remarks on this post should be related to the post.

    DL Foster said...

    Why gee vesti, you do have a heart.
    Im honored that all yous detractors would pitch your tents here, although it won't sway my mission to expose the lies, hypocrisy and manipulation of the gay rights movement. And have a little fun in the process. For all of those who wondering, THIS IS NOT A FIND JESUS SITE. There are sites where you can find Jesus (if thats who you are looking for) but it wont be here. So you can can your corny sideline quips about this site being "unchristian" etc,etc ad naseum. This aint that kinda party.

    Anonymous said...

    Ok if you want to go back to my initial comment, the article still makes a false statement. It took me all of 5 second to verify from several sources that Ochs did not start the New York Times. You acknowledge that he is the founder of the "modern" New York Times. There is a difference there and the article does not acknowledge that. I care very little about this subtle point and I'm sorry if the word "blatantly" was a little too much for you, but the MassNews article is still wrong.

    Anonymous said...

    Just read something above:

    "Scenario #2 - If this is private property (not an apartment,etc)the landlord should be able to evict any tenant for any reason..."

    So you think landlords should be allowed to evict African American's simply because they are black?

    DL Foster said...

    So you think landlords should be allowed to evict African American's simply because they are black?

    If the law allows it, yes.

    Robert said...

    So the question isn't
    "is it right" but
    "is it legal"?

    If the laws in a certain municipality permitted discrimination in housing, employment, etc., on the basis of race or religion, you would consider that to be not a problem? - much as you currently consider discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be not a problem?

    DL Foster said...

    Robert, good question.
    Its not right to murder, excuse me abort a live baby, but its legal. Please show me some proof that you have spoken out against this.

    Robert said...

    I've spoken out against legal abortion as vociferously as you've spoken out against legal discrimination against GLBT people.

    I guess that makes us even.

    DL Foster said...

    If you say so.
    Moving on...

    GerrySA said...


    As you so quite rightly point out, you are quite entitled to express your perspective, which you publish in an open forum open to all.

    The flipside is that anyone reading your "perspective" also has the right to reply with their own perspective.

    By censoring comments on your website, you are in affect defeating the object of a blog, which I believe is to encourage debate (however vociferous it may become), not shut it down.

    In the introduction to your blog you use the word "analysis", which is defined by the Oxford dictionary as - "to examine and interpret". I don't see much of that on your blog. What I do see, however, is a one-sided critique of gay rights born out of thinly-veiled discrimination.

    As to your "analysis" of gay rights, I reckon Rush Limbaugh does a much better job. At least we know where he's coming from.

    DL Foster said...

    I dont compare myself to other people, it stifles my individuality. Maybe you do, but thats your thang.

    Your point is well taken. That's a good definition of "analysis" SGA. And what you did in your comment is exactly what it means. No different than what I do. Its MY perspective and I write accordingly. Just like you THINK Limbaugh does a better job at analyzing gay rights, its just that. What you think, nothing more. If you cant afford me the same courtesy of publishing what I think, then you yourself dont follow the Oxford definition. Im not sure I ever stated that the object of this blog is to "encourage debate". There are a lot of excellent blogs that do not encourage debate. I happen to think I have more than my fair share of "debate". What I wont allow or tolerate for one milisecond gratuitious profanity, personal attacks or the like. Cmon, man youre not that stupid.

    Now, Im curious. What if I came to your office, house, web forum, etc and cussed you out on a regular basis? What would you do? Get me a glass of ice cold lemon tea and invite me to have a seat?