Posted on 03/23/2006 8:14:51 AM PST by LM_Guy
NEW YORK For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.
As it did in the Abu Ghraib mistake, the Times ran an editors' note on page 2 of its front section, along with a lengthy news article (this time on the front page of Section B). Again mirroring the Abu Ghraib episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and/or editor.
The original article, more than 1000 words in length, was written by Nicholas Confessore. He also wrote the news article about the error today. Without saying that he wrote the first story, he wrote today: "The Times did not verify many aspects of Ms. Fenton's claims, never interviewed her children, and did not confirm the identity of the man she described as her husband."
The editors' note states:
"An article in The Metro Section on March 8 profiled Donna Fenton, identifying her as a 37-year-old victim of Hurricane Katrina who had fled Biloxi, Miss., and who was frustrated in efforts to get federal aid as she and her children remained as emergency residents of a hotel in Queens.
"Yesterday, the New York police arrested Ms. Fenton, charging her with several counts of welfare fraud and grand larceny. Prosecutors in Brooklyn say she was not a Katrina victim, never lived in Biloxi and had improperly received thousands of dollars in government aid. Ms. Fenton has pleaded not guilty.
"For its profile, The Times did not conduct adequate interviews or public record checks to verify Ms. Fenton's account, including her claim that she had lived in Biloxi. Such checks would have uncovered a fraud conviction and raised serious questions about the truthfulness of her account."
Last Saturday, the Times editors' note disclosed that Ali Shalal Qaissi, pictured on the front page "as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004," was not that man. "The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph," it related.
It's such a huge daily paper, it is bound to happen. When called to their attention, they do publish errata. But not on the 1909 article :-)
I'm not excusing it, just saying that's the way it is. Can you imagine all the extra time it would take to check public records before publishing a story? Some can't be found, some aren't released to anyone but a close relative, some are only released to descendants, some not at all, sometimes you have to go there in person, each county is different.
I don't want to unjustly accuse the Times of anything, but when it's a good story that might fit their agenda, they can print it and so few people read who know the real story/individual that many similar errors have probably never been caught. It's not like your hometown newspaper where more people know the names and facts.
Some stories are too good to check. If they checked this woman out and it turned out her story was fraudulent, they would not have had a hammer to back the President with. The only surefire way to prevent this is to not check the story, and print whatever lies anybody might feed you, as long as it supports your agenda.
Meanwhile the documentary evidence coming out of Iraq showing an Iraqi connection to 9/11 "may have limited evidentiary value"...
"paper of redactions"...
Surprise, surprise, surprise....
Rush is talking about this now.
Have you ever noticed that every time you have direct personal knowledge of a newsworthy event, when you read the story in the newspaper the next day, they have just about everything wrong? This happens over and over again. Talk to anybody who has been the subject of a newspaper story, and they'll tell you the same thing.
And yet, those same people will pick up the New York Times the next day and believe every word.
It happens on FreeRepublic all the time. Freepers, of all people, should be well aware that the media is almost completely untrustworthy. Yet, several times a day (hour!?!) Freepers kneejerk themselves into hysteria based on the latest lies published by the AP, CBSnews, or the NYT's. It's like Charlie Brown and Lucy. How many times do you have to get the football yanked from in front of you before you stop falling for the same old crap.
That's because the only thing the NY Times cared about was the fact that she was bashing the Bush Administration.
BTW when is this incompetent reporter going to be fired?
Good photo, but we really need one of BURNT toast..... charred, ugly burnt toast...... that is the MSM.
That it's absorbent and good for blotting up spilled coffee.
It's no surprise that the NY Times staff can find fraudulent felons faster than any other news source...but in the past the NY Times wasn't caught quite so fast!
you cant rebuild ~ 50,000 homes with 4 days notice.
Of course, you are correct. Its the status I have difficulty with.
Is this Looter Guy's Looter Girl?
Hey come on now! I bet you the National Enquirer report most accurately and truthfully than the NYT.
Guy Trebay used to work for the Village Voice before moving uptown to The Old Gray Lady.
Dana Milbank was groomed for his role as chief Bush critic at WaPo by liberal, niche magazine TNR.
Journalism is an incestuous pit of unchallenged, doctrinaire leftist groupthink, with everyone patting each other on the back and exclaiming how backward all of us proles-who are patriotic and hold conservative values-are.
We gotta get ready for baseball season!
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.