(UPDATED) Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?

November 24, 2009

A few minutes ago, we received the following comment attacking Glenn Reynolds for his observation that “every promise has an expiration date” (Emphasis added in red):

“Regardless, Glenn Reynolds is correct when he says, “every promise has an expiration date.”

Say what? Didn’t you mean to say, Glenn Reynolds is taking a false cheap shot at Obama, today like every day?

What kind of idiot didn’t notice that Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan?

Did the same idiots not notice that Obama has already DOUBLED the number of troops in Afghanistan since taking office?

If you don’t know what in blazes you are talking about, then by all means, STFU, Glenn Reynolds.

Sometimes when we receive a comment or email that contains a personal attack, or unwarranted vulgarity, we run the IP address of the commenter to see where the comment might be coming from.

Imagine our surprise when the IP address for the above comment (IP: 170.149.100.10) resolved to the New York Times!
OrgName:    The New York Times
OrgID:      NYT-1
Address:    229 West 43rd Street
City:       New York
StateProv:  NY
PostalCode: 10036
Country:    US

NetRange:   170.149.0.0 - 170.149.255.255
CIDR:       170.149.0.0/16
NetName:    NYTCO
NetHandle:  NET-170-149-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-170-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1T.NYTIMES.COM
NameServer: NYDNS1.ABOUT.COM
NameServer: NYDNS2.ABOUT.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    1994-05-18
Updated:    2008-06-03

RTechHandle: ZT84-ARIN
RTechName:   The New York Times
RTechPhone:  +1-212-556-1234
RTechEmail:  hostmaster@nytimes.com

Our question… is this an intern or a staff member who is trolling blogs, sticking up for Progressive ideologues and telling Glenn Reynolds to “STFU?”

At a way to keep it real classy NYT!

UPDATE I:
Riehl World View
lists a few other ugly comments allegedly attributed to the same NYT IP address listed above.

Tags: , , , ,

32 Responses to (UPDATED) Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?

  1. alanstorm on November 24, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    “What kind of idiot didn’t notice that Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan?”

    What’s this guy smoking? That has been a big part of the criticism re: The Won’s dithering.

    With the blinders the Leftists force themselves to wear, it’s amazing they can walk to their computers safely.

  2. Tim K. on November 24, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Liberalism = keeping it classy.

    Does it surprise me that some idiot from the NY Times is attacking one of the greatest Conservative leaders in the blogosphere?

  3. mcnorman on November 24, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    Does someone at the NYT have their panties all twisted up in a knot?

    Ahahahhahahaaha more thin skin.

  4. AnonymousDrivel on November 24, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    “What kind of idiot didn’t notice that Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan?”

    So earnest was Obama on that front that he dithered without meeting THE top military brass for months until, finally, Obama was embarrassed via a 60 Minutes interview into action.

    And here we are, many weeks even after that, and waiting still for that escalation for the most important “war of necessity.”

    Hey, NYTimes lackey. Campaigning != Action. Campaigning == Rhetoric. In Obama’s case everything mostly means “Present”… just like your reportage.

  5. John2000 on November 24, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    The president will announce on Tuesday, December 1. yeeehaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwww

    Rumors are that a deal has been struck with Teh Taliban and that six provinces will be added to Taliban control. This will certainly require more troops. Pick a number.

  6. JadedByPolitics on November 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    So what we have here is a failure to communicate because IF and WE now know they do the NY SLIMES reads Conservative blogs and YET they still LIE & HIDE the truth then they are truly the leftists WE have always known them to be!

  7. MarkJ on November 24, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    If the NY Times tells you to “STFU” that says only one thing:

    Whatever you’re doing, keep doing it.

  8. your mama on November 24, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    The left are scared and it’s starting to show,keep up the good work.
    Do people like reading fiction in their newspaper?Appears so.Sad really.

  9. malclave on November 24, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    Ah, the New York Times… the Yellow Lady of Journalism, aka the DNC newsletter.

  10. datechguy on November 24, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    There was a time about 7 or 8 years ago when Instapundit had a quote at the top that called him the “New York Times of bloggers” he took that down a bit ago.

    I think if the New York Times wanted to regain it’s former status as an actual respected and believed source of news it should strive to become the “Instapundit of Newspapers”.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting.

  11. Shaka Zulu on November 24, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Geraghty was the one who started the every Obama promise has an expiration date. How to do good research, GooFY.

  12. richard reed on November 25, 2009 at 12:35 am

    The “Southern Tenant Farmers’ Union?” How odd.

    Oh, never mind: “Star Trek Federation University.” Now that’s more like it. Not really an insult, though.

  13. [...] YORK TIMES FOLKS telling InstaPundit to “STFU” — in blog comments? How are the mighty fallen . . . [...]

  14. Fen on November 25, 2009 at 9:03 am

    New York Times? I think I saw one at the dentist office last week.

  15. megapotamus on November 25, 2009 at 9:04 am

    Actually Barack’s committment to the War of Necessity was given the gy marriage treatment by plenty of folks, including the Progressive Caucus, that is no matter what he said publicly his supporters assumed it was just deception. Does anyone think this cat is actually FOR “escalation” in Afghanistan? On a related note, The Surge was predicated in part on one of Hackworth’s elements of warfare… that of MASS. The Surge, like a strategic flush to clear your toilet, was designed to hit with all it’s force at once, not dribs and drabs over years with PR treatment for months in advance. If Obama is trying NOT to emulate Bush on The Surge, this will effectively do it. The Bush Surge vs The Obama Squirt.
    Change.

  16. Bigfingo on November 25, 2009 at 9:19 am

    Nah, the NYT has plenty of class. Just most of it’s 3rd class.

  17. AugustFalcon on November 25, 2009 at 10:15 am

    “What kind of idiot didn’t notice that Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan?”

    Oh … I give up… Wait a minute, no, I don’t. The answer is the kind of idiot making up certain segments of the U.S. Electorate!

    That was the beauty underlying the effectiveness of then Senator Barack Obama’s campaign. Not only did he target each political subgroup in the normal way of politicians, i.e., by telling them what they wanted to hear, but he also used his language and rhetorical skills to construct a chameleon-like political edifice sensitive to the innate bias and beliefs of each individual member of the polity viewing it. He made it too easy for each of us to believe exactly what we wanted to believe about him.

    That said, my own recollection is that the then candidate, Senator Barack Obama, was pushing an expansion of the conflict into Pakistan and, that necessarily meant (again, to me) an increase in the tempo of the war in Afghanistan. I saw just the chameleon: it was warlike.

    Professor Reynolds being fully politically engaged actually followed and blogged about the actual words used by Senator Barack Obama when speaking to his base. The base saw only the light of their Messiah rising. They missed the “just words” thing; Professor Reynolds did not. So, I see no need for him to STFU since he does indeed know what in the blazes he is talking about.

    Based on the almost pleasureable placement, indeed make that almost amusing juxtaposition of the near ancient argot “what in the blazes” with the more delightfully modern “STFU” I would speculate that the author of the titularly offensive phrase above is either a NYT editor or columnist. But, I digress.

    It pleases me to imagine that there are such people at the NYT who actually peruse and comment on what some might consider non-reality based blogs. One hopes that future comments by such people will incite fewer emotional responses targeted only to their tone. These folks need to be engaged with as much rationality as can be mustered.

  18. Derek on November 25, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    I’m proud to know that my kids (now 8 & 10) will respond, as adults, to the words “New York Times” saying “what’s that?”

    They are fastly driving themselves into oblivion. Such a thing happens to news organizations when they no longer pursue the news.

  19. Tex Lovera on November 25, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Let’s see, who to believe?

    A law professor who provides both sides of the story?

    Or a fishwrap of a newspaper on life support because their narrative is falling apart?

    Man, gotta think about that one…

  20. G Taylor on November 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    Professor Reynolds only takes cheap, deceptive shots at the President once per month. See, e.g.:
    November 10, 2009
    JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WANTS VISITOR INFORMATION FROM NEWS SITE: “In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day. The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site ‘not to disclose the existence of this request’ unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.” Pushback from the EFF led to the subpoena being withdrawn.

    Posted at 10:34 am by Glenn Reynolds

  21. G Taylor on November 25, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    Professor Reynolds only takes cheap, deceptive shots at the President once per month. See, e.g.:
    November 10, 2009
    JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WANTS VISITOR INFORMATION FROM NEWS SITE: Posted at 10:34 am by Glenn Reynolds
    “In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day. The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site ‘not to disclose the existence of this request’ unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.” Pushback from the EFF led to the subpoena being withdrawn.

    Posted at 10:34 am by Glenn Reynolds

  22. Lawrence Person on November 25, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    As I noted, the stark fact of the matter is that Instapundit has more readers than The New York Times. If I wanted to reach readers outside NYC, I’d rather get a link from Instapundit than a profile in the The New York Times.

  23. On an ironic note on November 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Now, for some irony: earlier this year I commented on a couple polls that Glenn Reynolds was running on his site. The response to one was “ShutTheFckUpLonewacko” (the last part is my former domain name).

    What whoever left the comments apparently didn’t realize is that the polling software listed a partial IP address, and, as discussed at my name’s link, one of the “STFU” comments resolved to an IP in Knoxville, TN and the other resolved to the University of Tennessee.

    Now, certainly, just because they were both Instapundit polls and both comments came from Instapundit’s university and city doesn’t mean they were from Glenn Reynolds. It could have just been someone else, and I’m sure he’d be willing to help me find who did it. Of that I’m sure.

  24. Nightly Ramble Wednesday | BitsBlog on November 25, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    [...] is known for it’s leftie staff… and Founding Bloggers has one on the hook apparently. I’ll toss the link, but since Founding Bloggers seems to be under attack, I’ll post the whole of the post, at [...]

  25. Ed Driscoll on November 25, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Dispatches From The House Of Sulzberger…

    Last week, when we produced our “Pinchurian Candidate” video, we noted that New York Timesmen such as Frank Rich, had developed quite an idiosyncratic use of language; dubbing conservative Republicans in upstate New York “Stalinists…..

  26. RebeccaH on November 25, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    In the first place, Glenn Reynolds isn’t a “conservative”. He’s a libertarian, and a pretty fair and balanced one at that. Which is why he’s a target for the hidebound reactionaries at the New York Times.

  27. Tami on November 25, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    That address in the IP identification is the old New York Times building, which the NYT has not occupied since 2007. Either someone’s pulling your leg, or they never updated their IP information to their new sparklin tower address, which is The New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018.

  28. beatrix on November 25, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    If you google “franglosaxon” you’ll find his (her?) comments all over the place. Clearly an Obama fan and very big on argument-by-name-calling.

  29. l.a.guy on November 25, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    I’m pretty ambivalent about Obama but I really don’t understand the “stalling” on Afghanistan criticism. I think everyone understands the difference between campaign rhetoric and the real world. Obama may wish he could take those “war of necessity” words back, but either way he was going to have to make the best of a bad situation. I don’t see how he commit to increasing troop levels until the election results were resolved, appearing to blindly back a corrupt government would have done more damage to our cause than good. Even now he has to walk an incredibly fine line between pursuing the interests of the US while not alienating the Afghan population at the same time.

    Personally I’ve had enough of the “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.” crap. Doing something for the sake of doing something is the enemy of common sense. Making informed carefully considered decisions, as he appears to be doing with Afghanistan, is the way things ought to be done.

    As to the vitriol and nastiness of “progressives”… if you’ve spent anytime reading KOS of Huffington Post then it would hardly come as a surprise.

  30. HatlessHessian on November 25, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Tami mus work for the NYTimes given the remarkably inept understanding of how IP addressing works. Buildings do not have IP addresses; they’re assigned digitally and provisioned to correspond to be routed to locations on networks. (I know, this is terribly difficult stuff for a firm that uses the same dead-tree communication technology common in the 1880s). WHOIS registration has no correspondence to the actual routed location. In fact, it may shock a Times reporter that things like NAT (network address translation) can complicate the identification of a source party on a network.

  31. [...] Founding Fathers wonders who is telling Professor Reynolds to “STFU.” Glenn snarks. Dan Reihl takes the NYT challenge, and hits pay dirt. Glenn is vaguely amused, and . [...]

  32. JayK on November 26, 2009 at 12:22 am

    I would like to point out that there seems to be an assumption here that the commenter from the New York Times must necessarily have been a reporter.

    The poster could be an accountant…or in circulation..or working in the cafeteria. I know this is all great fun here, but I wonder what percentage of people who work at The New York Times actually WRITE for The New York Times.

TEACHING RADICAL

Jon David Kahn “American Heart”



Links