Setting the Record Straight - [FR v. The NY Times, Or How NOT To Do Activism]

New York Times ^ | March 14, 2004 | Daniel Okrent

[Hon]

Now I'm going to pick on the worst habits of certain anti-Times critics lurking on the Web. Last Sunday, an item appeared on FreeRepublic.com under the headline "FReeper Call to Action! Help make N.Y. Times correct the phony setup outrage story of Bush ads." Posted by "Doug from Upland," it exhorted readers of the self-described "Premier Conservative News Forum" to call Washington correspondent Richard W. Stevenson and demand that he "correct the record." Stevenson's apparent offense was a March 5 story he and Jim Rutenberg had written about negative reactions to Republican ads invoking the events of 9/11. Stevenson's telephone number was reproduced in the posting in large black letters.

Soon Stevenson's phone was ringing like an alarm clock, his voice mail filling up, he told me via e-mail, with "messages that impugned my professionalism and patriotism." Only one person, he said, bothered to leave a name and a phone number.

Had they all done so, Stevenson might have called them back and told them neither he nor Rutenberg had written what Doug from Upland had attributed to them. An Australian newspaper had run a story that included details from several different news services but left the Times writers' bylines in place. The material that provoked the posting and the calls had never appeared in The Times; informed that this was the case, Doug replaced his earlier exhortation with an apology to Stevenson.

I've been through several escapades like this one, launched from various ideological precincts scattered around the Web. They all conclude with the same lesson: It's all right to knock The Times. It's even your privilege to hate it. But it's always useful to read it first.

The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. The public editor's column appears at least twice monthly in this section.

[Hon]

This is not good.

(And it is untrue that all publicity is good publicity.)

[GeronL]

hhmmmm

[GeronL]

I remember the night before the 'outrage' the DAILY NEWS had already written their story. How?... the Kerry campaign gave out contact info for those 9-11 'families'....

[GeronL]

Notice they didn't name the Australian newspaper which messed up the article and left the bylines but they name FreeRepublic.com and Doug. Sleazy.

[doug from upland]

Daniel called me a few days ago to give me a heads up about the story. I gave him permission to use my last name when he asked, but I guess he decided not to.

Unfortunately, although we really made them angry with our phone calls, I don't believe they have done a story on the media setup and phony outrage. Someone please show it to me if they have. I think it is time for me to demand the right to repond to this and have it published.

[Hon]

I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am defending the "Peaceful Tomorrows'" organized phony outrage.

I was one of the first to expose their nefarious plot:

Clinton Worker Behind Trashing Of Bush 9/11 Ad
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091629/posts

But as I have mentioned a couple times recently, it doesn't help to go off half-cocked.

[onyx]

BUMP!

[Hon]

"Unfortunately, although we really made them angry with our phone calls, I don't believe they have done a story on the media setup and phony outrage."

Let me guess, you didn't major in psychology.

(Of course they wouldn't have covered the ultra leftwing activists who were behind the organized bogus outrage anyway. But pissing them off won't help either.)

[ladyinred]

This might have been a mistake, but believe me, the NYT's has written lie after lie, bash after bash, since since President Bush has been in office. Perhaps they will know from this reaction, albeit a false presumption, that we are sick of them.

[JLS]

As far as I can see "the self-described "Premier Conservative News Forum"" has as much right to that mantle as the New York Times does to the self described "all the news that is fit to print" mantle.

BTW, it is a good think not a bad thing when people take notice of you. They are worried you are right, they are wrong and someone might notice.

The internet is competition for other media. The rest of the media naturally react to new competition like any business does, they try to discredit it. Just as a drug company with a patent say the generic is not as good or imported drugs are a terrible danger, so the rest of the media claim the internet is full of errors and bias. This site is honest about its bias and certainly no more biased than the NY Times.

[Piranha]

I think you did great work. I also think that if I were unfamiliar with Free Republic and still read the NY Times, I would be sufficiently curious to take a look at the website, which Okrent so thoughtfully identified, to see what it's about.

I also read your apology and your wish that FReepers avoid abuse when dealing with the media, and I agree 100%.

Good job.

[optimistically_conservative]

Slightly unrelated, but the NYT is hardly clean in half-cocked attacks.

Here and here.

I remember your post on this and I remember you asking FReepers to be polite.

Unfortunately, we have some that participate in the same hate-filled, bashing rhetoric we complain about the left using.

[Richard Kimball]

Oh, come on. This is just the NYTimes being the NYTimes. How dare Doug jump to the conclusion that because a man's byline appeared on an article that Doug should assume he wrote it? Shouldn't the Times be more upset that another newspaper attributed stories to them incorrectly?

[Hon]

Well, who says the NY Times is biased? Here is an "abstract" (the original is no longer free) of an article on this subject by Stevenson.

Please note their correction:

NATIONAL DESK | March 5, 2004, Friday
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE PRESIDENT; Bush Campaigns Amid a Furor Over Ads

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JIM RUTENBERG; Richard W. Stevenson reported from Santa Clara, and Jim Rutenberg from Washington. (NYT) 1347 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 16 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Pres Bush completes second day of campaign swing through California, with pointed emphasis on his credentials as commander in chief and robust defense of his tax cuts; but throughout day his aides scramble to counter criticism that his first television commercials crassly politicize tragedy of Sept 11 attacks; criticism--from firefighters union, relatives of victims and allies of Sen John Kerry--put Bush campaign in uncomfortable position; photos (M)

Correction: March 6, 2004, Saturday

A picture caption yesterday about a rally in Santa Clara, Calif., where President Bush attended a fund-raiser, described the crowd incorrectly. It included detractors of Mr. Bush, not just supporters.

Source

I know for a fact that some people (such as Ann Coulter) have not been able to get errors (well, lies) they have printed about her corrected, even when they have been pointed out and documented.

It was ever thus.

[AmishDude]

I hate this kind of activism because people do call and harass and threaten without looking at things for themselves. But there are a couple of points:

• You mean a writer in the N.Y. Times bothered to write a column to complain and whine about his treatment by members of our itty bitty website? How flattering! But the Times should realize that they are still the "newspaper of record" even as that medium declines in importance. They often are the story.
• It was not necessarily FReepers. Many many people lurk on Free Republic.
• I find it amazing that the Times would complain about the journalistic integrity of Free Republic. Jayson Blair, anyone?
• The mistake was that of the Australian newspaper. Why blame FReepers? They should be outraged at the other paper.
• Doug read something in that paper which he presumed was the truth. It is not like this is sort of reportage is outside of the Times' M. O. Besides, if a newspaper (Australian or otherwise) references the vaunted New York Times, why shouldn't we believe them?
• If they were so interested in correcting the record, they could just log in and send FReepmail.
• Shouldn't the hard-nosed reporters at the Times have found the truth of the deceitful 9/11 families and their ties to the Left before Doug had to ferret it out?

[Bob]

Did anybody take a look over at DU at the time to see if they might have orchestrated some of the nastier comments? I wouldn't put it past them.

[GeronL]

How dare Doug jump to the conclusion that because a man's byline appeared on an article that Doug should assume he wrote it? Shouldn't the Times be more upset that another newspaper attributed stories to them incorrectly?

Exactly.

[laylauneok]

If you ask me, the NYTimes is just using Free Republic for free advertisement. They're a **** publication, and everyone knows it. Maybe you should send them an ad bill.

[doug from upland]

Let me guess, you didn't major in psychology.
==========================================

We are on the same side. By that condescending comment to me, you apparently didn't major in psychology either.

[FairOpinion]

I think it's important to check our facts first, and when contacting the media, be scrupulously polite -- name calling only reflects back on us and it's only OK, when Democrats do it -- but point out the facts strongly. Just as the connection between the "peaceful tomorrows" organization and Kerry was a news broken here, then picked up in the media, I think we play an important role -- but we need to make sure we can continue to do that.

I think the media is afraid of Free Republic, some real good FACTS and truths are being unearthed here, and precisely because of that reason, the media would like nothing more than to discredit us, and even shut us down.

On a slight tangent, but still related to the main point, I believe there is an orchestrated campaign against conservative media and internet sites, I want to mention that apparently Viet. Vets Against John Kerry were threatened, because they had a picture of Kerry's book on their website.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

"There is no picture in this space because lawyers representing John Kerry's interest threatened our Internet server with legal action unless the picture was removed."

I think a PERCEIVED vulnerability is the posting of copyrighted material, but as we discussed on another thread, and I have noticed since on other sites, posting a "Fair Use" disclaimer should take care of it -- but maybe some FReeper lawyers would/should take a look and make sure we are not vulnerable, because I am sure they are just getting started in their attacks against conservative sites, including us, because we are so effective.

This is the standard "Fair Use" notice I have seen in places -- including the leftist site commondreams.org -- which comes up in fine print on every page.

Jim, you may want to consider adding this disclaimer to FR -- but, as I said, there must be some FReeper lawyers, who can help -- I am no attorney.

Example of a disclaimer ( this is from commondreams.org -- if it's good enough for them, they could hardly criticize us).

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

=====

I found another site : Stanford Copyright & Fair Use

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

9. Fair Use
NEXT


Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.

Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages.

The only guidance is provided by a set of fair use factors outlined in the copyright law. These factors are weighed in each case to determine whether a use qualifies as a fair use. For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income. Unfortunately, weighing the fair use factors is often quite subjective. For this reason, the fair use road map is often tricky to navigate.

This chapter explains the various rules behind the fair use principle. To help you get a feel for which uses courts consider to be fair uses and which ones they don't, we provide several examples of fair use lawsuits at the end of this chapter.

For educational fair use guidelines, see Chapter 7, which deals with academic permissions.


.... and more detail at the link.