Latest Black Eye for New York Times

Fox News ^ | 3/26/07 | John Gibson

[skr]

bump

[DCPatriot]

They could have published the apology on the page A-1 the same day the article appeared in the 4 color insert.

[windchime]

You are absolutely correct, but it would diminish the effect of the story and might be noticed by readers (if there still are any).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Times has a political point of view these days it has no problem pushing in its news and editorial pages. OK, it gives up some points in objectivity when it does that, but the publisher has a right to do so.

The First Amendment indicates that any newspaper has a perfect right to push an agenda - be it in the "opinion" section of the paper or in the "news" section, makes no difference in law. The only difference it makes is in the embarassment it occasions when other outlets of Big Journalism have to stonewall the issue of whether the Times (in this case) is "objective."

The facade of "journalistic objectivity" is the glue that holds Big Journalism together. What that facade actually proves is that Big Journalism is a single ideological entity, much as Major League Baseball is a single entity consisting of competitive units such as the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. In both cases the competition between them is conducted within strictly limited bounds.

Fox News Channel is not a member in good standing of Big Journalism because it limits its implied criticism of Republicans in a way that Big Journalism does not - it breaks the mold of ideological conformity and therefore is subject to criticism from other journalisms in a way that CNN or ABC News, et al, are not.

[Tut]

Fox News Channel is not a member in good standing of Big Journalism because it limits its implied criticism of Republicans in a way that Big Journalism does not

I see Foxnews telling the news rather it is good for the republicans or not, the same as they report of the Democrats.

Foxnews gets smeared because they don’t censor their reporting to favor the liberal agenda like CNN, MSNBC and the network news do. I view Foxnews who reports the news of the day regardless of agenda. If you get a politician messing up for an example, Foxnews would more than likely report it no matter if that politician is republican or democrat where the liberal media would most likely leave that story out of their reporting if it is about a democrat politician and they figure they can get away with leaving the report out.

A good example perhaps is those latest polls about Iraq. One pull puts the view of the Iraqis in a better light than the other. The network news only reported on the poll that gave the view of the Iraqi people in a poor light as far as the conditions there where as Foxnews reported on both polls trusting their viewers to make up their own minds. The readers or viewers of the liberal media do not have that trust. The media themselves does not give them that options.

For me at least, it speaks volumes when a media has a need to push an agenda or in this case like The New York Times, having to out and out lie to push that agenda. It tells me that even they don’t think so highly of their own point of view that they have such a need to lie to their readers. In this way, they admit how messed up their point of views are otherwise they would have no need to lie and deceive their readers.

And yes, that also goes the same with their editorials as well. If the authors of their editorials lies to their readers to push their agenda, if the authors of their editorials needs to deceive their readers to push their agenda, then they must know that their agenda really isn’t worth writing about here in the real world.

No wonder the New York Times is sucking mud. They really need to just go away.

[mikeybaby]

I read Jim Cramer (Realmoney.com), who is most identifiable from his program "Mad Money". His thinking is that the newpaper industry can return to profitabiliy by firing 70% of the editorial,foreign, and news staff and using AP for sports and news with low paid blogers and college students to do opinion pieces and local stuff.
This is the motivation behind Sam Zell and Burkle bidding for newspapers assets.
Love him or hate him,this seems to make sense.
Look at a given paper and see how much of their content comes from the AP already.

[driftless2]

"sucking mud"

You got that straight. The Slime editors probably trample each other in the rush to get an anti-Bush or anti-Republican story out. Their motto is : the truth be damned, smear now...retract later.

[OldFriend]

Saw the story and knew it was phony right from the start. They acknowledged they didn't have confirmation in time for publication......(I don't believe that for a minute) then they stated that while the story was untrue, the subject thought it was true!

Jayson Blair lives at the NYSlimes

[GBA]

Is slander against the law?

I think it would be great if there was some sort of "we, the people" (not the government) suit against the NYT for abusing its unique power of the press by printing a known to be false story that hurt the reputation of the men and women in the military.

This is not the first time they have printed stories that were known to be false. I would hope that they could be "swift boated" in a court of law where all of their dirty laundry could be aired for public consumption. I'm sure the stock holders would love that!

[SkyPilot]

What happened was The Times' Sunday magazine had a story about sexual assault on female military members in Iraq. One named Amorita Randall had a particularly tough story about being raped and suffering a severe brain injury in a roadside bombing.

The magazine was scheduled to be published March 18. But six days earlier on march 12, The Times knew that Ms. Randall — get this — had never been in Iraq. The Times didn't reprint the magazine.

Incredible.

If the Times were a hospital, they would be sued into oblivion.

The they were a restaurant, they would be permanently shut down by the board of health.

It is a travesty they are not held accountable to the public.

[Doogle]

The Times evidently knew it was printing phony information

..and what's new?

[windchime]

". . . then they stated that while the story was untrue, the subject thought it was true!"


That statement was as outrageous as the way they handled the printing of the story.

[windchime]

Fox just reported this story a minute ago. Glad to see they're staying with it.

[windchime]

"I think it would be great if there was some sort of "we, the people" (not the government) suit against the NYT for abusing its unique power of the press by printing a known to be false story that hurt the reputation of the men and women in the military."

I've wondered about that on several occassions. They endanger us all by harming the morale of our Military and revealing national security information.

[OldFriend]

Another unremarked factor is that the outed liar is not pointing her finger at another person in the story.

This was all concocted by the Slimes to promote their agenda.

This will change nothing at the Slimes.

[windchime]

"If the Times were a hospital, they would be sued into oblivion.

The they were a restaurant, they would be permanently shut down by the board of health.

It is a travesty they are not held accountable to the public."



Yes! to all.

[windchime]

"..and what's new?"

Not a thing, but it should be pointed out every time they're caught.

[windchime]

"This will change nothing at the Slimes."


Agree.

[apocalypto]

I agree. It has been one thing after another for the New York Times.