pvn
|
|
Can one change one's spots - or how the NYT has been a hotbed of lies for a good portion of its existence.
| 
Jun 28 08:08 UTC 2003 |
When Jason Blair was canned for merely submitting work that he got by
variously doing google searches or convincing underlings to do his work
for him it seemed to be something horrible. But it seems to me that at
least he got the facts right no matter how he came upon them.
Sure its wrong but these days you can hardly blame the dude for
hunkering down in his tony digs and eat take out while all the time
pretending to be someplace else. Heck, its not even the first time
recently if one remembers the reporter from India who managed to be in
two places at the same time as well. The NYT staged a 'mea culpa' and
fired a few folk who probably cashed in tons of stock options in the
process and was "shocked, I'm shocked there was gambling going on here"
(sorry, that was a review of an old movie). The fact remains the NYT
has an interesting history to say the least. In the 1930s it won a
pulitzer prize for its reporting of one Malcom Muggeridge. Given that
one concludes based on the evidence that the same institutional
proclivity has persisted to the modern age. For those of you who don't
know Muggeridge was dead ringer for the apparently currently alive
"comical ali" of recent Iraqi coverage from the NYT quoted as factual
differing only in "beat" - ie he covered to the north west.
|
i
|
|
response 3 of 12:
|
Jun 30 01:56 UTC 2003 |
Ummm...Mr. Nasby, do you think that things are systematically better
elsewhere, do you hold the NYT to a higher standard, or what? It
ain't news that humans are stupid and/or crooked a fair fraction of
the time, and being in some place/race/station/whatever that thinks
it's above that doesn't change the fact.
|
polygon
|
|
response 4 of 12:
|
Jun 30 15:52 UTC 2003 |
Funny how Jayson Blair is held up as discrediting 150 years of NYT
reporting, how Maureen Dowd is excoriated for leaving a few words out of a
GWB quote -- meanwhile, the far worse offenses committed by the media
(INCLUDING the fabled New York Times) in blind pursuit of the Clintons are
forgotten by everyone except Sid Blumenthal.
In other words, it's perfectly okay for nationally prominent reporters and
columnists to lie, make up quotes, ignore contrary evidence, and so on, as
long as they're doing it to blast a Democrat. But how DARE they get a
single word out of place when the political figure is a Republican.
But, like I said, conservatives don't believe in symmetry. Presenting
deliberate lies as news in order to bring down a Democratic president is
holy, exhalted work. Saying anything the least bit unkind about GWB is
simply treason.
|