Posted on 05/13/2003 2:58:04 AM PDT by kattracks
How the NYT regards itself, and what it actually is, are two different things.
But like a government ministry's self-investigation, nothing will come of it.
"The New York Times - Expect The World"tm
Jesse Jackson must be holed up in his mansion trying to figure out a way to make a few bucks on this affair.
Everyone knows that reporters are just whores. They write what the customers wants to read, and get paid for doing so.
A few of the recent fabricated stories in the Boston Globe include the following:
BOSTON GLOBE IGNORES IRAQI TORTURE CHAMBERS + PRISONERS [4/16/03]
BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES FRONT-PAGE POLL [4/9/03]
BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES FRONT-PAGE SLUR AGAINST US MILITARY [4/8/03]
Gee, Raines, how hard is it to see a big hole in his expense account where travel bills ought to be?
I am going to try to say something here and it may not come off right, so I apologize if I offend people. Two things. The first one, the first four words of the above paragraph. I realize this is a British paper but my question is what is it is it black or African-American? Myself, I refuse to use the AA term when I am talking about an American who is black. Just as I am not Irish-American, or Scottish-American, or English-American, I know I will not be addressed as such and I refuse to address myself as a hyphenated American. But the larger question, is this part of the problem. When we attach a importance to an American with a hyphen, are we not making a false importance to that group of people. And then, if this group feels important, does it go as far as feeling that they should be treated special, treated different, given more breaks, etc. Does this go into Balkanizing America, bringing all of us to view others with resentment and envy?
Second thing. If I apply for a job with a small business, lets say an auto mechanic shop, I could possibly get by with false references and past jobs. They may or may not call to check on me. But how difficult is it for an organization as large as NYT to check out whether someone graduated from a college? This is just mind-numbing. I can understand hiring for diversity. I can understand if you want to hire a black reporter. But is the NYT saying that five years ago when they hired this clown that not another black, graduating from a journalism school, applied to work at the Times? If you want to hire a black reporter, why not get a bunch of applications from black graduates, and then hire the best one?
A deft bit of database searching by the Weekly Standard magazine showed that Blair's 50 corrections worked out at 6.9% of his stories - a rather better rate than the paper's veteran commentator RW Apple (14.1%) or Washington bureau reporter Adam Clymer (9%). Among his Times colleagues, Blair had a reputation as a friendly face who would compliment people regularly on their articles, and often claimed access to important gossip or documents involving senior executives.
I like this paragraph. So Apple and Clymer have higher correction rates. Well, maybe they are making stuff up also. Why not check these guys out and see if they are where they say they are. The last bit reading between the lines, this guy Blair was a suck up who kissed arse to get where he got. I also consider it just irony that the part that did him in was ripping off a reporter he worked with as an intern. Not very bright!
That leaped out from the page to me, also. I have some questions:
1. How do we KNOW that no one contacted the Times? If there were so many corrections, SOMEONE contacted the Times, didn't they? This sounds like another lie to me.
2. Some people probably didn't contact the Times because (here's a surprise, Howell) THEY DON'T READ IT! THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!
3. Why are we taking the word of this professor, who wrote a suck up book on the paper and used to work for them? He is probably no better than Blair!
As an addendum to these comments, I would like to know what the errors Apple, Clymer, and others had to correct. I bet they were whoppers as well. I have not forgotten their articles on the tax cut (made up of whole cloth), their TWICE saying Henry Kissinger opposed the war in Iraq (he didn't) and other travesties of supposed reporting.
I think the entire paper has the accuracy of Maureen Dowd's column.
Readers expect reporters to get their facts straight.
Readers expect less accuracy from "commentators," just as they expect less accuracy from politicians. They know to be skeptical about what they hear from those two sources.
(Of course, the Times often confuses reporting with editorializing, but that's another story...)
By the way, will the Times be placing little asterisks next to the mistakes in Blair's articles that are archived?
Children who are doing research for school papers, and come across Blair's archived articles should be alerted to fudged facts.
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.