Posted on 02/01/2014 8:17:29 PM PST by Kaslin
Longtime readers here may recall that yours truly and others have written about liberties New York Times reporter Kate Zernike has taken with the truth, especially in her reporting on the Tea Party movement. Her penchant for inventing baseless stories about alleged racism in the movement once caused the late Andrew Breitbart to label her "a despicable human being."
Breitbart might well have the same reaction to the hours-later revision made at Zernike's Times story Friday about Chris Christie. Several alert bloggers and tweeters noted that her story about Christie's knowledge of shut lanes on the George Washington Bridge conveniently went from solid to speculative without any indication that any changes had been made. Here's how it originally appeared, as seen in the results of a Google search on [Christie "he has evidence"] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets) and the following tweet from Time Swampland blogger Michael Scherer (HT Twitchy):
Here are the current headline and first two paragraphs at Zernike's story:
Kate Zernike is smart enough to know that there's a world of difference between "he has evidence" and "(apparently unpossessed and unseen) evidence exists." So why did she run with "he has evidence" for at least several hours? And why doesn't she and/or the Times have the integrity to tell us about the change?
The "correction" added sometime this morning appears to be unrelated to the nature of the "evidence."
Swampland's Scherer capsulized the likely motivation, but downplayed the significance of the change, and proceeded to misplace the blame:
"Clumsy"? How about "misleading, and likely deliberately so"?
Drudge didn't wrote the story, Michael. If Drudge made a mistake, perhaps it was in trusting anything originating with Kate Zernike in the first place.
Perhaps Zernike knew that a deliberately exaggerated story on a Friday afternoon might cause Drudge to bite, and would plant the impression in the minds of many that Christie has been caught dead to rights. Though he may ultimately be, the Times walkback indicates that it hasn't happened yet.
But Zernike and the Times have "successfully" made that impression widespread. Mission accomplished, I suppose — if your goal is to deceive and destroy regardless of merit.
If the evidence existed, Wildstein would already have immunity from prosecution ...
I’m not young and i can tell you they were far more respected 40 years ago than they are today. Of course they lied then as well as now but their reputation was impeccable back then.
Kate Zernike is the NYT’s hit-woman, a sleaze artist par excellant.
She wrote the NYT’s hit piece on the Swift Boat Veterans Against John Kerry and our book “Unfit for Command” which she apparently never read.
The NYT, Wash. Post and possibly the LA Times refused to do a professional book review of our national best seller - over 800,000 sold +. Instead, while the WP and LAT basically ignored the book and the Veterans, Zernike launched into a defamation campaign against them and esp. the leader John O’Neill (and Adm. Hoffman).
Andrew Breitbart was too easy on her. He called her a “despicable human being”. “Despicable”, yes, “human being”, no.
Just another NYT’s leftist hack who was given a computer and monkey to assist her in her typing.
She should be given the “Walter Duranty Award” for smears and lies.
In fact, that should be the new NYT’s logo: “All the Lies, Disinformation and Smears that we want to print”
No longer is the NYT’s the “Gray Lady”. Color her “RED”.
Exactly
So whatever the ‘truth’ is, the media markets have decided that Super Bowl Sunday is their day to make sure we out here in fly over country, views Christie as an evil, Republican. Of course the ‘report’ did not present this supposed evidence, only claiming that it supposedly exists.
Compliments of the Dan Rather School of Journalism.
Their "reputation" was perhaps impeccable then, but their character was the same.
They were in the tank for FDR then just like they are in the tank for Obummer.
So why isn’t this a Drudge Headline yet?
According to the NY Times, anyway.
Actually if you do a search and go into the archives, he sort of did
It’s amazing that Freepers don’t realize that they helping the rats with their rants against Christie
We need a candidate that operates outside the media bubble. Someone who can go past them like Reagan did. In this culture, we should be looking for a fringe celebrity who displays an aura of authority. Someone like Fred Thompson could have been. Someone like Herman Cain could have been. Imagine if Rush ran for President. That is how far Conservatives need to shake up the system.
“It’s amazing that Freepers don’t realize that they helping the rats with their rants against Christie”
So true; the taxpaying voters of NJ still support him, because we have seen the alternative. He isn’t presidential material (and knows it better than anyone else), but he has all the right enemies (especially the teachers’ unions, the de facto owners of the Democratic Party). Here in NJ he is still the best we have.
I agree completely.
Conservatives need to defend Christie.
I don’t even support the guy, but he’s being sabotaged, and needs support.
Well, well. Once again the NY Slimes validate the truth and wisdom of my tagline. It is to laugh....but it ain’t funny.
Oh, the guy(!) who suggested I change “AS” to “IF”. We are BOTH right. What a sad truth.
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.