Allow me to simplify:
How to detect lies in your newspaper
1) Does your newspaper have ink on its pages, or are they blank?
1 posted on
05/23/2003 6:09:35 AM PDT by
Timesink
To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...
This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
2 posted on
05/23/2003 6:10:15 AM PDT by
Timesink
To: Timesink
al's one of "them" himself.
3 posted on
05/23/2003 6:16:45 AM PDT by
liberalnot
(what democrats fear the most is democracy .)
To: Timesink
He's right, of course. I think editors have a responsibility to force reporters to, at the very least, disclose the identity of the source to the editor and to confirm statements that appear dubious. News media should publish a key that clarifies what "White House sources" and "highly placed Administration officials" actually are. I have no doubt that more than one reporter has used a janitor or cook as a "White House source", particularly when quoting an opinion.
4 posted on
05/23/2003 6:23:00 AM PDT by
Mr. Bird
To: Timesink
BINGO (for the non-affirmative action part of the problem):
"The problem can be traced to the '70s, when The Times followed the example of The Washington Post in soliciting anonymous sources during the Watergate era."
5 posted on
05/23/2003 6:32:18 AM PDT by
GOPJ
To: Timesink
"When a reputable newspaper lies, it poisons the community. Every other newspaper story becomes suspect. Anyone stung by a newspaper story feels emboldened to call it a lie. Facts are not only impugned but made impotent. . . . The lie--the fabricated event, the made-up quote, the fictitious source--is the nightmare of any respected newsroom. It is intolerable not only because it discredits publications but because it debases communication, and democracy." NY Slimes Editorial, The New York Slimes - April 17, 1981
This New York Slimes editorial was written, when the Washington Compost didn't check the sources re the Pulitzer Scam of reporter Janet Cooke, a female Jayson Blair.
6 posted on
05/23/2003 6:33:57 AM PDT by
Grampa Dave
(Time to visit this website and join up: http://www.georgewbush.com/)
To: Timesink
Wow - I didn't know USA Today was OK with using the word "S***" in its copy. I guess if you're the former publisher, you can get away with a lot.
A decent piece, and about time from Al. This is the guy who, a few months ago, wrote a column about his use of adult diapers. He is senile and holding onto his column with an iron-clad, if demented grip.
8 posted on
05/23/2003 1:46:07 PM PDT by
laurav
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson