Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times ‘Black Eye’ Nothing New
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/12/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 05/12/2003 1:17:51 PM PDT by kattracks

Carl Bernstein told Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America" that, while the scandal involving former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was a black mark on the Times' reputation, the paper once again proved itself to be a great newspaper by publicly confessing its part in allowing Blair to get away with writing false stories.

If this was the first time the paper got what it’s publisher called a "huge Black Eye," that might be a legitimate observation, but, as history shows, both of the New York Times' proverbial eyes have been black for a long, long time; enough to disqualify it from ever being seen as great.

The failure of the Times to get rid of a reporter who it knew was utterly unreliable has been duly noted by most of the journalists covering the story.

The Times overlooked his endless string of inaccuracies, suspicious activities and even promoted him after Jonathan Landman, the metropolitan editor, warned newsroom administrators in by April 2002, that: "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now."

What they have not noted is the long history of journalistic deceit tolerated or even encouraged by the Times.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: falsification; howellraines; jaysonblair; newyorktimes; nyt; plagiarism; thenewyorktimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2003 1:17:51 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It's not just political bias. The NYT gets things wrong even when there is no "tendency". Largely it's a question of not even taking the trouble to get the story straight.

If Blair had stuck to making things up, rather than going on to plagiarism, there would be no story.

2 posted on 05/12/2003 1:38:19 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Plagarism, Yellow Journalism...The New York Times, ain't they grand?
3 posted on 05/12/2003 1:40:11 PM PDT by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It is a propaganda sheet for ultra-left wing causes and the liberal wing of the Democrat Party. It should be treated as such.

Worth repeating.

4 posted on 05/12/2003 1:42:34 PM PDT by b4its2late (Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? - H. M. Warner (1881-1958), Warner Brothers founder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
Good point.
5 posted on 05/12/2003 1:53:20 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: unix
Certainly NOT worth subscribing to since they are too lazy to get to the truth. The ONLY reason why they publicly apologised and are now trying to act all professional about it is only because too many others knew of the scam and they didn't want their sloppiness exposed by others to the public first, that's all.
6 posted on 05/12/2003 1:56:52 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
NY Times: All the Leftist Propaganda, that's Unfit to Print
7 posted on 05/12/2003 1:57:11 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY (((Resist the Leftist Media Brainwashing Machine)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I'd forgotten about Finkel and that wasn't that long ago.
Don't forget that J. Blair could have been caught by simply trying to reconcile his expense reports against his assignment log. My little niece could have duped these willing tools.
Blair pushed them to outing him. The San Antonio story that he "borrowed" from so freely was written by a woman that he had interned with at the Times way back when. Of course, he was going to get caught stealing from someone who knew him!
8 posted on 05/12/2003 2:00:29 PM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Sydney Schanberg, whose reporting from Cambodia heaped scorn on the notion that there was a bloodbath in that unfortunate nation, and said "nothing could be worse for the Cambodian people than the American presence."

Rent the movie "The Killing Fields" and watch how Hollywood helped the liberals cover their backsides on this sad and bloody tale as weel.

The reporter has angst, lots and lost of angst - you see. Why, he sweats and cries in his Chablis as he watches a looped videotape of a nasty B-52 bomber, knowing that the poor Cambodians are being slaughtered amd murdered. See, he knew all along the Americans were worse--right? John Malkovitch plays the one character who gets it right--the photographer who slams the liberal where he lives at a party "honoring" him for being a liberal reporter.

9 posted on 05/12/2003 2:00:38 PM PDT by SkyPilot (CNN- the "Al Jazeera" of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
The full text of Herbert Matthew's Sunday, February 24, 1957 puff piece on Fidel Castro is here:

Cuban Rebel Is Visited in Hideout
Castro Is Still Alive and Still Fighting in Mountains

Does anyone know if the work of Walter Duranty is on line?

10 posted on 05/12/2003 2:08:54 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In addition to the other coverups, go ahead and ask the editors at the New York Times why they are covering-up the scandal involving New York State Attorney General Elliott Spitzer? Go ahead, let's put a FREEP fire under their chairs too.
11 posted on 05/12/2003 2:09:50 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast
...the paper once again proved itself to be a great newspaper by publicly confessing its part in allowing Blair to get away with writing false stories.

BS! The Times, at this point, had no other choice. If the Times had any integrity whatsoever, Blair would have been long gone.

12 posted on 05/12/2003 2:15:43 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Some harsh -- but justified -- words for Schanberg from Orrin Judd.
13 posted on 05/12/2003 2:23:50 PM PDT by tictoc (On FreeRepublic, discussion is a contact sport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
They never met a Leftist dictator they didn't like. You name him, they love him.
14 posted on 05/12/2003 2:35:01 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY (((Resist the Leftist Media Brainwashing Machine)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Rush hit hard today on the NYT and other media increasingly using the phrase "an unidentified White House (State Dept., Pentagon) source stated such and such" in their news articles.

Rush asked what's to prevent lazy, anti-administration reporters from inventing all these "statements" and "leaks" according to their own personal political agendas?

Who can trust anything the NYT publishes on politics and foreign affairs anymore? Well, I never believed the leftist propaganda it wrote before, I still don't and I never will.

Leni

15 posted on 05/12/2003 2:50:46 PM PDT by MinuteGal (THIS JUST IN ! Astonishing fare reduction for FReeps Ahoy Cruise! Check it out, pronto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
How about I.F. Stone. Wasn't he employed by The Slimes when he wrote all the lies about Stalin?
16 posted on 05/12/2003 2:53:48 PM PDT by dix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; Reactionary; MEG33; Texas_Jarhead; weegee; Skywalk; ghostrider; dix; metesky; ...
True. The New York Times also worked with the State Department to install communist dictators in power. From a 1960 congressional hearing (Dodd is Tom Dodd, the soon to be disgraced father of Chris Dodd):

Senator DODD. You have been quoted, Mr. Gardner, as referring to, "Castro worship" in the State Department in 1957. What did you mean by this?

Mr. GARDNER. Well, did you read the article that, Matthews wrote, after he went up in the hills and saw him?

Senator DODD. Yes.

Mr. GARDNER. He wrote a Richard Harding Davis type of article, and he made Castro appear to he a Robin Hood, a savior for the country.

Senator DODD. Yes. But Mr. Herbert Matthews wasn't in the State Department.

Mr. GARDNER. No, but he was actually-he briefed Earl Smith-

Senator DODD. Your successor as Ambassador to Cuba was briefed by Herbert Matthews?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, that is right.

(Dodd changes the subject with a "we'll get back to that in a moment")

It gets worse. Full transcript of the "Hearings before the subcommittee to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act and other internal security laws of the Committee on the Judiciary" is here

17 posted on 05/12/2003 2:55:19 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Looks like the "Gray Lady" is really a hooker.
18 posted on 05/12/2003 2:58:57 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
Well said!
19 posted on 05/12/2003 3:00:09 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Thank you for this post, bookmarked it and will read later.



20 posted on 05/12/2003 3:16:07 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson