An Erosion of Trust (Barf-o-rama)

May 26 issue — For journalists, one of the most depressing dimensions of the Jayson Blair fiasco is this: why didn’t more of the subjects of his dozens of bogus stories in The New York Times complain about the phony details and concocted quotes? Are some readers so jaundiced about the press that they no longer even expect us to get stuff right? Do they just assume we make it up? Ouch.

THE EROSION of trust doesn’t result from more liars and plagiarists working in the business or a widespread decline in standards. In fact, it used to be that editors—like doctors—buried their mistakes. “Correction boxes” were rare. Now the competition (not to mention the Weblogs) hammers the media elite regularly, imposing more accountability.

But conservatives who are delighted to use Blair as a weapon against the “liberal” Times might not be so happy if a Democratic president is elected and the Times has less clout in standing up to him, as the paper did to Bill Clinton. When The New York Times loses power, the U.S. government gains it.

Does Jonathan Alter actually believe this? If he does, he's more deluded than any Jim Jones follower.

When The New York Times loses power, the U.S. government gains it.

What a bunch of lies! The New York Times is always, and I mean every effin day, always promoting bigger, more intrusive, more oppressive government. (Unless a Republican administration wants to arrest terrorists) It has not endorsed a smaller government candidate in 50 years or a Republican presidential nominee since Eisenhower. Therefore the government and the goals of the New York Times have been the same for over half the century. And Alter supposes to tell us that the NY Slimes is some sort of bulwark between us and the government? PUH-LEEZE!

I did not read the complete article but this first part caught my attention -

May 26 issue — For journalists, one of the most depressing dimensions of the Jayson Blair fiasco is this: why didn’t more of the subjects of his dozens of bogus stories in The New York Times complain about the phony details and concocted quotes? Are some readers so jaundiced about the press that they no longer even expect us to get stuff right? Do they just assume we make it up? Ouch.

Let's see - during the Clinton years, where was the NYT? Oh yeah, they were on the side of Bill Clinton, saying it is okay to lie if it just about sex - which it was not! What else were they saying or agreeing with? Oh yeah, everyone does it. Everyone lies. Everyone cheats on his wife. Everyone steals. In other words, all of America is crooked and bent. When Clinton lied and said he did not have sex, where was the Times? They were telling people that the bent one said he did not have sex so we should leave him along, it was part of a VRWC. When it was proved he did lie, did they call for him to resign or for any of his staff/cabinet to resign. No because then it was just about sex and besides, everyone lies.

Where has been the rest of the media? Dan Rather says you can lie and still be honest. Huh? Regardless of what people say about Drudge, if he was not around or someone like him, we never would have heard about the stained dress. Why? Because Newsweek had the story but was sitting on it for a week before Drudge broke it wide open. The three week battle in Iraq, where was the Times? Oh yeah, they were caught in the quagmire of the 60's, hoping that the US would get their arses kicked. And now Jayson Blair pops up. You know what? If he never ripped off other writers and instead stuck to making stuff up, he would still be there today and none of us would know about him.

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.