Posted on 09/27/2004 12:18:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
....I do not agree with readers who say the Globe should have held off writing about the CBS broadcast until it made its own verification. The Globe had no reason at that point to doubt the network's judgment. And newspapers routinely report important news generated by other media outlets as a way of keeping readers informed. That's their job.
But I do think that in the week after the initial CBS broadcast, the paper could have better reflected the emerging doubts, either by publishing available wire service stories or, better yet, developing its own. The Globe has a history of being out front on researching the candidates' military backgrounds, and it wasn't on this shifting story.
"We should have put more of our own investigative effort into that Friday story," reflects Mark Morrow, a deputy managing editor who has edited stories on Bush's military background. As it was, that Friday paper covered emerging doubts about the memos in a single paragraph in late editions, based on The Washington Post's reporting. As for publishing more the next day, Morrow says, "we should have."
......John Yemma, the deputy managing editor overseeing political coverage, says that, in retrospect, the paper was "not vigilant enough" in monitoring the wires for updates on the story. National political editors naturally focus on the race and the issues at stake on Election Day, he says, and "we were too slow to respond when the media itself became the story."
Some readers last week said the Globe has a "liberal bias" that made it too slow to report the collapse of the memos' credibility. ........
"Precisely because the Globe is Kerry's home town paper," says Offen, the reader from Newton, "it has an obligation to be out front so that no one could accuse it of bias."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Naw, ya don't say?! Say it ain't so!
BRRAAWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAH THAT'S A GOOD ONE!
Oh really, then please do me the favor of pointing out stories you culled from other media outlets that were supportive of the SwiftBoat Vets. The sanctimony of these newspapers really brings on the gag reflex.
Where is the apology??? I did not find "we are sorry President Bush".
"The Globe had no reason at that point to doubt the network's judgment. And newspapers routinely report important news generated by other media outlets as a way of keeping readers informed."
(Our source was a biased one. Why would we doubt them?)
Like Rush says, "If you read the NYT, you've read the WP, BG, LAT, etc, etc, etc.
You've read the MSM.
I characterized it as an apology. I should have used quotation marks - "apology."
sheesh they honestly think ppl are that stupid.
They agreed with the source and it was in keeping with campaigning for Kerry.
'Nuf said.
Bump!
LOL!
MSM's defense that they aren't and never have been biased, has been completely discredited.
I suspect that "some" actually translates to "thousands upon thousands".
Liberal appology.
There you go. You found it.
LOL
"I characterized it as an apology. I should have used quotation marks - "apology.""
Sorry I thought it was their headline. I went to the site and never looked at the headline, which is why I asked the question cause I never read the "apology".
I wonder how many letters they got.
I wonder how many subscriptions were canceled.
This shows we can, on some level, effect biased news coverage.
Well, it was a perfectly good question.
Well, Ms. Chinlund, since you weren't 'out front', you stand rightfully accused of bias.
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.