Setting the Record Straight (but Who Can Find the Record?)

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.

I would think that the NY Slimes author would appreciate learning that his name was being dramatically misused. We on the outside obviously have no way of knowing that he did not write what was attributed to him, regardless of where it was published. And even if it was not in the NY rag-of-record, it was published, with a NY Slimes author in the byline. The Age is clearly at fault, not DFU. Is the Slimes seeking an apology from them, forcing the Age's 'Jayson Blair' into the open?

DFU, you did nothing wrong, and the apology was in good taste and decorum.

We on the outside obviously have no way of knowing that he did not write what was attributed to him, regardless of where it was published.

First of all, the New York Times public editor acknowledged that Doug corrected his error on FR, whereas they re-reported, but never corrected, the story about the US troops killing Iraqi civilians. So just keep in mind while reading the following that I know FR can be better than the New York Times.

However, considering what is in italics above: Of course we have a way to know, namely, to check with the New York Times, most of whose content is available for free for 7 days on the net.

The underlying problem has to do with a certain kind of patriotism sometimes missing on FR. It is the kind exemplified by our founding fathers when they often (can't find a quote right now) described America's savages as the world's best left of center papers. Yes, the Indians massacred but they didn't rape, generally believed in fair dealing, etc. Well. Along these lines, it is obvious to me that the liberal newspapers of America, particlarly the New York Times and Washington Post, are the world's best. They lie the least. They correct themselves the most. Etc. By contrast, the English language overseas newspapers linked to in FR are far, far sloppier and worse. If people here had the patriotic idea that our bad liberal newspapers are better than their bad liberal newspapers, they wouldn't make the mistake of thinking you can trust an Australian report of what a Timesman wrote.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.