The Report, the Review and a Grandstand Play (NYT Public Editor on Iraq-Al Queda Ties & More)

New York Times ^ | 06/27/04 | Daniel Okrent

[conservative in nyc]

Here's the promised editorial from the NYT Public Editor.

[conservative in nyc]

NYT Public Editor on Iraq-Al Queda Ties and Clinton Book Review Ping

[Hildy]

I want to know how many books have been reviewed twice by the New York Times.

[Recovering_Democrat]

While headlines may be short, their impact is large. Willful distortion? I don't see it.

Then you're a blind man. Big Time, as Dick Cheney would say.

[RW1974]

So, he's saying that the NYT distorted the facts and ran a misleading headline, but that they have no intention of apologising or printing a correction. Nice journalistic ethics there.

[Drango]

Willful distortion? I don't see it.

And fish don't notice the water they swim in. It's normal to them.

[okie01]

Willful distortion? I don't see it.

Dan, you're a nice guy. But you don't see it because you don't want to see it.

[McGavin999]

While headlines may be short, their impact is large. Willful distortion? I don't see it.

I'll bet you don't see media bias either.

[Valin]

CHIEF book critic Michiko Kakutani's review of Bill Clinton's "My Life," published in last Sunday's paper, was brutal. For any author, it would have been the review from hell, the one from which a career (much less the book at hand) could never recover.

At lunch the other day a guy talking to his friend said, "I just bought Bill Clintons book". My question to him, "WHY? "Because I want to know about Clinton". My reply "What makes you think you're going to find out anything about willard from this piece of trash, Evry review says it a REALLY BAD BOOK.

[Valin]

Media bias? What media bias?

[Piranha]

He doesn't address the Times Editorial that called for President Bush to apologize for suggesting the tie between al-Qaeda and Hussein that he acknowledges in his piece.

[Piranha]

It's pretty common for the NY Times to have multiple reviews of the same book; usually there is one in the weekday NY Times and another on Sunday in the Book Review, which is a separately-edited section.

In this case, Kakutani (who is sharp as a tack) reviewed the book for the news section, which is idfferent from a Book Review review -- even though her review was published on a Sunday.

I understand, though, that the Times did have another weekday review a few days after hers, and it was a glowing review. I find it unusual for the paper to have two reviews written by weekday reviewers.

[Piranha]

Willful distortion? I don't see it.

And fish don't notice the water they swim in. It's normal to them.

Great response!

[conservative in nyc]

He doesn't address the Times Editorial that called for President Bush to apologize for suggesting the tie between al-Qaeda and Hussein that he acknowledges in his piece.

That editorial did more than call on President Bush to apologize. It dared President Bush to show the Slimes the proof of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. But the Slimes ALREADY had the proof --- they were sitting on it for "several" weeks before printing a story about the anti-Saudi marriage of convenience on the front page of their Friday paper.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping.

Searching for a word ......Obfuscation.....of what the New York Times really thinks.....

entries found for Obfuscation.

ob·fus·cate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates

1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

---

[Latin obfuscre, obfusct-, to darken  : ob-, over; see ob- + fuscre, to darken (from fuscus, dark).]

---

obfus·cation n.
ob·fusca·tory (b-fsk-tôr, -tr, b-) adj.

[Download or Buy Now]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Obfuscation

\Ob`fus*ca"tion\, n. [L. obfuscatio.] The act of darkening or bewildering; the state of being darkened. ``Obfuscation of the cornea.'' --E. Darwin.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Obfuscation

n : confusion resulting from failure to understand [syn: bewilderment, puzzlement, befuddlement, mystification, bafflement, bemusement]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Southack]

The NY Times made two specific claims:

1. They said that the Bush Administration somehow convinced Americans that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

2. They said that the 9/11 Commission found no Iraq - Al Qaeda ties.

But reviewing *every* speech by President Bush and most speeches by the other high-ranking Bush Administration officials shows that all involved went out of their way to say that Iraq was specifically *not* involved in 9/11, based upon the evidence at hand. I've found not a single one who said that Iraq was behind 9/11, and more importantly, the NY Times is unable to show so much as a single quote to that effect.

Yet they made that claim in no fewer than two Editorials.

Furthermore, the NY Times itself published on January 14, 2001 and on June 26, 2004 front page news stories detailing specific ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on non-9/11 activities. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission specifically cited Iraq sending a high level officer on 3 trips to Sudan to meet with Osama Bin Laden in 1994.

Thus, both claims by the NY Times are refuted by the evidence at hand.

Their public editor, their ombudsman, Mr. Okrent, addresses neither claim nor refutation successfully in this "reply."

He even claims that distortion is part of the news business and that no apology is required. How quaint.

But what is addressed above is not even something as benign as "distortion." No, those are outright fabrications by the NY Times.

They've misrepresented what the 9/11 Commission said. They've misrepresented what the Bush Administration said.

And they've even misrepresented what their own staff has published in various FRONT PAGE articles!

But what can they do at this point. Like any crook caught completely red handed, there is no benefit to them at this point to being contrite. They can only play the idiot kid who always claims that he "didn't do it" when caught on camera doing it again.

It's not intellectual. It's not honest. It doesn't show integrity.

That being said, it's probably the best that the Left can offer on any large scale. They simply aren't capable of arguing issues any longer.

No, they have to fabricate wild-eyed tales to even stay in the debate.

[patj]

This guy even gives more ink to the book review story than he gives the link story. One thing you can say for liberals in the media, they are always kind to themselves.

[neverdem]

Did you buy those dictionaries?

[EllaMinnow]

Do not miss this completely self-righteous disgustingly Clymerous piece of dog droppings from the NYT.

[cyncooper]

While headlines may be short, their impact is large. Willful distortion? I don't see it.

Ya don't say!