Posted on 09/28/2005 9:00:20 AM PDT by new yorker 77
NEW YORK: The New York Times on Wednesday retracted the basis of a story in Tuesday's paper that erroneously reported that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had authored an unsigned memo on libel law. In an unusual move, the newspaper published two versions of the correction, one on the regular A-2 corrections page, and another on A22 in the national news section, which ran 243 words. The second version was also written by the same writer of the original story, Adam Liptak.
Liptak's first story, published on an inside A section page, reported that a multi-paged memo on the precedent-setting 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan had been written by Roberts during his time as a White House lawyer in the early 1980s. That ruling held that libel could only be found if a news organization reported false information with actual malice.
The story described the memo as "a blistering 30-page critique of the case."
On Wednesday, the correction revealed that Roberts, who is nominated to be chief justice of the Supreme Court and faces a U.S. Senate vote on Thursday, did not author the memo, saying, "The Times erroneously attributed it to him."
The paper went on to state that Bruce Fein, a Washington lawyer and former Federal Communications Commission counsel under Ronald Reagan, said that he wrote the memorandum. It added that the undated memo was in papers from Roberts's years as a lawyer in the Reagan administration.
Liptak and Managing Editor John Geddes were not immediately available for comment Wednesday.
The correction did not explain if the paper took further efforts to authenticate the memo prior to the original story, saying only that "people quoted in the article discussed the Fein memorandum, provided to them by a reporter, on the assumption that it had been written by Judge Roberts."
Wednesday's correction added that the papers containing the memo "also included another memorandum, signed by Judge Roberts, that briefly described his own critical views on the Sullivan case. In that memorandum, dated Aug. 28, 1985, Mr. Roberts offered what he called "my own personal view" on the proper balance between the interests of libel plaintiffs and the interests of the press," the correction added. "He said he would favor relaxing the standards established by the Sullivan case, which gave the press increased protection from libel suits brought by public officials, in exchange for eliminating punitive damages, which can often account for the bulk of libel awards."
Producing the FAKE NEWS is common.
I expect more of this: NY TIMES --- Here's a FAKE POLL on the FAKE NEWS....
LOL
It's Bush fault!
Fake.. But accurate.. hehe. Looks like Dan Rather got a job at the slimes. :)
This is now becoming a weekly occurence. Last week was Geraldogate, this week it's the Roberts retraction. Why anhyone would read this pathetic excuse for a newspaper is beyond me.
Let's go ice skating in hell......
contemporary, that is.
RATHER: "In the interest of being truthful to the American people, I, Dan Rather, your humble reporter, have been subcontracted out by the NY Times to do fact checking on their stories. I'm sure this will lead to the most ethical and honest newspaper in the history of the universe..."
Interesting.
You've heard of "The Placebo Effect" and "The Butterfly Effect" the above story may be the first documented proof of the:
RATHER: Adam, here's the research on that Robert's memo...It's all ligit..."
Obviously the reason Liptak never asked Roberts if he wrote the story was that Pinch Sulzberger wanted to produce an unpleasant surprise in the middle of the nomination hearings. They didn't want any warning to leak out.
Besides, the Times must have fired all its fact checkers and style editors years ago. Why else would they have so many lies and misspellings on the front page?
Hey, get the story out, and later when it's discovered to be a lie, just retract it, the damage is done, mission accomplished. And don't anybody start questioning motives either.
Just like when the Philadelphia Inquirer ran that banner headline last week concerning the Cardinal and the Priest Abuse "report" - "Don't Read Report, Rigali Says" and then it turns out, "oops, honest mistake! He never said that after all." But throw whatever crap you have, real or made up, at your enemy and see what sticks.
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Gee - Does this mean that Chief Justice Roberts will have to recuse himself on cases involving the press?
People you don't want to piss off -
1. President
2. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
3. Any US Marine
Googling Adam Liptak turns up all kinds of B.S. this guy has been spouting for The NY Slimes and NPR. He must be part of the Hillary 08' Brigade...
There. I fixed it for ya!
Very Astute!
NY SLYMES - All the news fit to print, even if we have to make it up.
LIPTAK: "What, I'm supposed to find out if people actually said these things???? I don't get paid for that..."
I'm sure all the liberals eat this crap up! The Slimes is just feeding their loyal parasites.
I don't like this. An occasional correction might lead people to actually believe some of the other stories...
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.