Posted on 01/21/2007 2:48:24 PM PST by paltz
Fake stories can be reported to the NY Times ombudsman here:
Byron E. (Barney) Calame
E-mail: public@nytimes.com
• Phone: (212) 556-7652
• Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
Wow, who woulda think it!?!?!
Thunk it.
There are liars, damn liars, and the New York Times!
Oh my! How could we have ever allowed such innaccuracies to appear the Old Grey Lady! Why, I'll immediately call for a thorough investigation!
(when pigs fly)
NySlimes has no shame and apparently no editors.
No kidding! I wouldn't want my dog peeing on the New York Slimes. Yuck
I like the concept of "journalistic malpractice".
Once a year, journalists get together to discuss journalistic ethics. Invariably they reach the same conclusion, that ethics are whatever an individual journalist wants them to be, and that is all the ethics that should ever be demanded of them by other journalists. That is, none.
So it is time to create a web page highlighting the PEOPLE behind "journalistic malpractice", who OBJECTIVELY violate what the PUBLIC considers as ethical behavior in journalists.
This means that since journalists refuse to condemn each other for even horrific ethical lapses, the public should do it for them.
Newsbusters.org already shows many examples of "journalistic malpractice". But what needs to be done is to combine their condemnation with something like The Smoking Gun, so that the public can see the rogue's gallery of "journalists" who write these unethical stories.
And if they don't include a byline, then a picture of each member of the editorial staff of that news organization should be shown. If they hide behind their editorial staff group, then the group is as guilty of "journalistic malpractice" as the unethical "journalist" who lied in the first place.
They have gotten away with filling our news with fakes, unverified facts, twisted statistics, and political manipulation for years, with no threat that they, personally, would be shown as the unethical hacks they are.
Not surprisingly, if you have photos of the writing and editorial staff of the New York Times, you already have individuals guilty of huge violations of "journalistic malpractice."
The public needs to see their faces to go with their notorious names.
Zero.
It also means that they will be unable to suck the life from some poor schmuck in the future. Now they truly ARE on their own, and succeed or fail by their own devices, not by riding like remoras on the hide of a victim male.
Kudos to MM for running the numbers. This story never sounded right to me. Should have trusted my instincts. (And taken the source into consideration.)
The New York Times is the most susceptible organization to those of pretentious/deceptive authority. As long as one knows how to sound officious and authoritative, the New York Times, along with most other collectives of pretentious liberals, have no defense against the con-artists of every stripe, because they know those are the greatest collections of such "non-discriminating" people one is likely to find.
Umm..did you read the article?
If present trends continue, the day will soon come when this fond wish of the leftists WILL be true. Then everything I've said will apply in spades.
bump
This is phoney.
That's the price they pay for being liberals --
the chance to seem like utter fools every day of their lives.
It just seemed a little off topic. I personally never take a post off on a tangent ; )
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.