PatsWSB47

Latest Black Eye for New York Times
Monday, March 26, 2007

By John Gibson

My friend Rick Leventhal, one of our best correspondents here at FOX News Channel, has a great story today about The New York Times, and he asks the question at the end: When are we going to hear an explanation from The Times? So far he hasn't got one. Here's the story:

The Times evidently knew it was printing phony information in a recent story, but waiting a week to print a correction. In fact, it appears to have scheduled a correction for a week later and the only possible explanation is that reprinting the incorrect story would cost too much.

What happened was The Times' Sunday magazine had a story about sexual assault on female military members in Iraq. One named Amorita Randall had a particularly tough story about being raped and suffering a severe brain injury in a roadside bombing.




The magazine was scheduled to be published March 18. But six days earlier on march 12, The Times knew that Ms. Randall — get this — had never been in Iraq. The Times didn't reprint the magazine. It didn't run a correction that day. Instead it printed a correction a week later on March 25.

So The Times knew a source for a story was a phony on March 12 and printed a correction 13 days later. And right in between they actually published the story in the Sunday Times Magazine.

Does it cost a lot to reprint an entire four-color glossy paper Sunday magazine? Yes. Does it cost a lot in reputation for the newspaper of record to knowingly publish false information and figure it can be fixed with a schedule correction a week later? Yes and yes.

The Times has a political point of view these days it has no problem pushing in its news and editorial pages. OK, it gives up some points in objectivity when it does that, but the publisher has a right to do so. But when The Times knowingly publishes phony information because it costs too much to reprint and thinks a correction a week later will fix things, that suggests something different than just editorial point of view. It suggests a willingness to lie for money. If you'll lie for money, doesn't it follow you would find it much easier to lie for the much higher calling of ideology?

The Times has some explaining to do.

That's My Word.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261460,00.html

Has anyone else heard about this yet? Do you think this constant bombardment in the Times and the rest of the MSM has any influence on puplic oppinion?

Patters

The Times also covered up the bombing of Cambodia during Vietnam at the request of the Nixon White House.

At any rate, a few points: (1) what evidence does Fox provide that the Times knew the truth earlier? None. (2) The Times probably waited a week to print a correction, so it could be in a Sunday paper, rather than be lost in a weekday paper. But, being an organ of the Republican Party, is manipulating those who drink their koolaid.

For those who aren't looking for political fodder, here's a better article on the matter than the garbage spewed from Fox:

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/conte...raq_story.html

DarrylS

I tried watching Fox to try to find out the truth about what is going on, as they are fair and balanced , however all I found out about was Anna Nicole Smith.. so much for that effort.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PatsWSB47

That's beautiful. You're defending the Times' political fodder by describing Fox's piece as politcal fodder. Why is Fox' s piece "garbage" and why does the Times get a pass?

Harry Boy

The NY Times loses credibility daily, they have a big problem on their hands, they are no longer able to control and slant the news to their own political agenda, we now have other outlets that allow us to see, hear and read all the things that they would prefer we didn't know.

The NY Times has been forced to show it's true colors and they are having a very hard time trying to feed us their one sided story so easily as they have done in the past.

America now has The Internet, Bloggers, Talk Radio, Fox News and Camera's all over the world.
Even a dummy like me knows that now when the NY Times tells us it is raining out, somewhere a Blogger, Fox News, Radio, Drudge will immediately loudly shout "no it isn't the NY Times is wrong" and we will know that the NY Times is LYING.

THE NY TIMES WANTS BUSH TO FAIL THE NY TIMES WANTS AMERICA TO FAIL.

IF A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT BECOMES PRESIDENT AND THE WAR GOES ON THEN THE NY TIMES WILL SUPPORT THE WAR.

The NY Times is nothing but a "Socialist Rag" it should be handed out free of charge to Wino's & Junkies all over America to wipe the Feces from their Rectums after having a Bowel Movement in the local Playground.
GET BUSH.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

patriotspride

what the times is doing is nothing new.they have been lying plagiarizing misleading misrepresenting facts for years now.whats worse is they dont care anymore if they get caught .

Harry Boy

Thats right and they don't care if they get caught because they know "The Pelosi Gang" and every Bush Hating Far Left Wing Kook is on their side cheering them on.
__________________________________________________ ___
GET BUSH thats all that counts the hell with America.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

QuiGon

I am just going to sit back and enjoy reading all the usual liberal apologists in this forum come out and defend the NY Times and attack Fox News (and Rush Limbaugh).

Real World

This isn't anything that I haven't been saying since I joined this forum. This is why you need to read as many news sources as is humanly possible, and try to understand the angles that each is reporting from. when you do that, you're able to atleast make an educated assesment of what you think the actually case may be. This story is dsiturbing in that they knew the info was bogus and untrue, yet still printed it. So what else are they lying about?


Here's a story about it from her local paper.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/conte...raq_story.html

Amorita Randall’s story was one of several in The New York Times Magazine’s March 18 edition, “The Women’s War.”

Randall’s story, at least as far as the Iraq part goes, is untrue, the magazine acknowledged on Sunday and Randall, 27, said on her MySpace page.


“ ‘I don’t remember all of it,’ she told me when I met her in the sparsely furnished apartment she shares with her fiancé,” Corbett wrote in the story. “ ‘I don’t know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome.’ ”

While the two discussed the “supposed I.E.D. attack,” the story noted, “Randall appeared to recall it in exacting detail — the smells, the sounds, the impact of the explosion. As she spoke, her body seemed to seize up; her speech became slurred as she slipped into a flashback. It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness.”

Randall received a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal with Marine Corps insignia, which is awarded to those who serve in a combat area, including Iraq, or in direct support of troops deployed in one, the magazine said. The Navy said she was given that medal because of a clerical error.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

The Times gets a pass because the Fox story is not convincing. (1) What is the evidence that the Times knew about their mistake before the piece printed? (2) What is wrong with the Times printing it's correction on the following Sunday, instead of the following day? After all, many people only subscribe to the Sunday Times, and they're the ones who need to see the correction. If the Times really knew about their mistake beforehand, then there's a legitimate issue. As far as the article goes, I haven't read it, so have no way of knowing if it had a bias. Do you?