Dancing on NY "Journalists"(Update on William C. Rhoden)

[JMarr]

The important question is WHY the original story was pulled. We all think we have a good guess -- that its assumption about who would win turned out wrong -- but we really don't know.

If it was pulled because of the final score, that's weird for all the reasons mentioned.

It might have been pulled, though, for other reasons. Such as inaccuracies about the Broncos situation or the Pash conference call. That's a different matter. We really don't know. This would be different. If the NFL's lawyer called, this might be a different situation.

There is even another explanation that, frankly, to me makes the most sense. I believe it is possible that Rhoden wrote several versions of the same story, with the idea that which one the paper posted at the end of the day would depend on what the result was. There is nothing wrong with this. Well, there is a little bit -- most journalists say it is wrong if you imply that you are responding to actual events with things you wrote before the game. Someone got in trouble for that recently -- Bob Ryan? Tony Kornheiser. Don't remember. But that's different from saying, before a game, "If A happens, this will be my theme, and if B happens, this will be my theme, and I'll write a paragraph to insert about the actual result once the contest is over." My best guess is that this is exactly what happened here, and the story that got posted was Rhoden's if-the-Jets-win story, but it somehow accidentally got posted before the game.

The only thing we know is that the NYT, which owns the Globe, should have egg on its face bigtime. The sad part is that, partly because it's mostly about a sports opinion, no one will really care or even hear about it, except for rabid Pats fans. (Ironic, because the opposite happened during Spygate when a senior Senator even wanted to get Congress involved )

Props to Shmessy for catching this and trying to keep it alive.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

If you go to the article now it has this correction at the bottom. But the correction has nothing to do with the previous article.



What a joke, they say they updated it to make the correction about the number of Belichik's super bowl rings and make no mention of the previous article (and they can't even spell Belichick's last name correctly)

good job NY Times.

Its official, the Old Gray Lady has dementia. Sad, really.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Then all Rhoden and the NYT has to do is to come clean and explain that. They OWE THEIR READERS THE TRUTH. Simple as that.

This story was caught and brought to their attention over 12 hours ago - - and they put in an addendum talking about the "ONE" thing that they revised - - the number of Belichick's rings?????

That's a lie to cover-up - - which is far worse. They are digging themselves a bigger hole by how they are stonewalling with more fabrication.

I think this is a bit overboard. If they haven't explained it in a couple of days, it will be curious, but this isn't the Pentagon papers.

For what it's worth, the correction about the number of rings has been there for much of the day. I posted about it several hours ago.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The important question is WHY the original story was pulled. We all think we have a good guess -- that its assumption about who would win turned out wrong -- but we really don't know.

If it was pulled because of the final score, that's weird for all the reasons mentioned.

It might have been pulled, though, for other reasons. Such as inaccuracies about the Broncos situation or the Pash conference call. That's a different matter. We really don't know. This would be different. If the NFL's lawyer called, this might be a different situation.

There is even another explanation that, frankly, to me makes the most sense. I believe it is possible that Rhoden wrote several versions of the same story, with the idea that which one the paper posted at the end of the day would depend on what the result was. There is nothing wrong with this. Well, there is a little bit -- most journalists say it is wrong if you imply that you are responding to actual events with things you wrote before the game. Someone got in trouble for that recently -- Bob Ryan? Tony Kornheiser. Don't remember. But that's different from saying, before a game, "If A happens, this will be my theme, and if B happens, this will be my theme, and I'll write a paragraph to insert about the actual result once the contest is over." My best guess is that this is exactly what happened here, and the story that got posted was Rhoden's if-the-Jets-win story, but it somehow accidentally got posted before the game.

I don't think so because the original story was written from the viewpoint of pre-game - no mention of the result.

I think the initial story was just so ridiculous, amateur, non-factual and borderline unethical - as evidenced by all the negative reactions to it from everyone including New Yorkers the day before the game - that he/they regretted it from the moment it was posted.

Then the actual game result made it all the more embarrassing, as it highlighted even more that he doesn't know jack about football and the state of these 2 teams. But why they didn't just pull it entirely is beyond me, because the mixing of the game result with all the Spygate stuff still in the article has turned it into a total farce, like someone cut and and pasted 2 documents together, didn't finish, and ran a draft version. Do they have editors employed there?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I don't think so because the original story was written from the viewpoint of pre-game - no mention of the result.

I think the initial story was just so ridiculous, amateur, non-factual and borderline unethical - as evidenced by all the negative reactions to it from everyone including New Yorkers the day before the game - that he/they regretted it from the moment it was posted.

Then the actual game result made it all the more embarrassing, as it highlighted even more that he doesn't know jack about football and the state of these 2 teams. But why they didn't just pull it entirely is beyond me, because the mixing of the game result with all the Spygate stuff still in the article has turned it into a total farce, like someone cut and and pasted 2 documents together, didn't finish, and ran a draft version. Do they have editors employed there?

Employed yes, working no.

The dinosaur media loved trashing Internet sources decrying their lack of layers of fact checking and editing. The net has exposed this pretentious attitude for the complete canard that it is and likely always was.

On the net you'll get corrected and challenged promptly while the old media goes through a Kabuki dance pretending to do corrections. Sadly, most folks haven't caught on to this.

 

[jmt57]

I'm not buying the theory of 'here is the story if the Jets win, there's another column if the Pats win' simply because of the timing. It looks to me like the story went up and there was plenty of time to pull it or retract it.

It appears that people at the NYT did realize the story was available to the public for quite some time; if that was the case and it was accidentally posted they would have pulled it right away. But they didn't pull it and didn't edit it - until the Jets lost.

Now I know newspapers have had cutbacks, but I find it hard to believe nobody noticed that an article was made public that was not intended to be made public for that long.

And I find it even harder to believe that the timing of the edit and the outcome of the game was a mere coincidence. If there was any doubt, the reasons given for the edit erased any doubt.


Even though this is just an opinion about sports, I have a feeling this won't go away and be swept under the rug.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This was an odd one -- I saw it online yesterday and it made no sense; no context and the "Patriots in retrograde" thing was bizarre. Between it being taken down yesterday then re-appearing with a topper about last night's game, makes me think this was posted by accident. Only guessing, but it's as if someone wrote some background material anticipating a Jets win and it got posted in error. Still, it's bizarre - -even if the Pats had lost it would have been hard to writ of them being in decline. Says a lot about the guy's thought process.

The accidental publishing is not out of the question.

I read the article here in yesterday's paper and thought it was even more incoherent than what I normally expect from this guy, who writes with such a hometown bias that I'd expect to be reading him in a Tabloid and not in the "Paper of Record." If you think about it, the changes weren't made until after 11PM and the whole thing must have gone through several versions. It's possible they just sent something to print at around midnight that was the wrong version or that they were planning to replace with a canned piece. Rhoden was probably doing all of this from home, if he was involved at all.

As far as Rhoden's concerned, it's amazing that a guy can apparently know so little about his subject matter and still hold a byline in what is still a prestigious newspaper. He must have something on somebody.

 

[BSR]

I believe that the "Corrections" listed at the bottom of the page are corrections from the printed version and not from the previous on-line version. I think for all intents and purposes this is supposedly a new article. Both are shoddy pieces of journalism but what is new on this subject. They just like to repeat the same things over and over and over again without ever trying to uncover anything new relative to the topic. They do that because they know anything new would most likely diminish the importance of taping signals and therefore the sensationalistic impact of the story.

 

[JudyPatFan]

The NY Times has a "public editor" whose job is like an ombudsperson's - Here is the Times' description: "The public editor works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public, principally about articles published in the paper. His opinions and conclusions are his own." He has been quite critical of the paper at times. Someone might want to send a comment about this Rhoden article to him at [email protected]. (The current one, Arthur Brisbane, is the fourth person in this role for the paper.) I bet he might use part of his bimonthly column on this issue!

 

[shmessy]

I believe that the "Corrections" listed at the bottom of the page are corrections from the printed version and not from the previous on-line version. I think for all intents and purposes this is supposedly a new article. Both are shoddy pieces of journalism but what is new on this subject.

Sorry, but no.

They actively eliminated the original version from the online site. They made sure to whitewash it and hoped that evidence of it would never be found.

Too bad. Some people downloaded and saved it. Now, the NYT and Mr. Rhoden have been called out on it on Joe Scarborough's show and several online sites and they have yet to even respond.

 

[BSR]

Sorry, but no.

They actively eliminated the original version from the online site. They made sure to whitewash it and hoped that evidence of it would never be found.

Too bad. Some people downloaded and saved it. Now, the NYT and Mr. Rhoden have been called out on it on Joe Scarborough's show and several online sites and they have yet to even respond.

I'm not sure what you are saying no to since what you wrote after that is basically the same thing. There was an original article and it was removed and replaced with a new article.

 

[shmessy]

I'm not sure what you are saying no to since what you wrote after that is basically the same thing. There was an original article and it was removed and replaced with a new article.

BSR "I believe that the "Corrections" listed at the bottom of the page are corrections from the printed version and not from the previous on-line version."
_____________

No. It's a correction from the original online column also. The three rings ascertion is in the last line of the original online piece.
____________

BSR "I think for all intents and purposes this is supposedly a new article."

No. It's a REPLACEMENT article. A "NEW" article would be in addition to an existing article on their website. Once again, there would be no problem as long as Mr. Rhoden or the NYT EXPLAINED to their readers/customers why the significant changes occurred to the column and why the original piece that was read by thousands of people is now completely erased from the site.

________________-

Look BSR, we're basically on the same page here, but you seem to fail to see that what the NYT and Rhoden did in this instance is the exact same whitewashing and cover-up they are claiming BB and the Pats did.

Here is the damning evidence of Rhoden'sNYT's hypocracy from the original column:/
_______________
"The unanswered question is what level of conceit or insecurity prompted Belichick to cheat. We may only know that when Belichick writes the ultimate autobiography. Meanwhile, we continue to refer to Belichick as a genius, and one of the great coaches in N.F.L. history."
_______________


Is Mr. Rhoden being just as "conceited" and "insecure" by not addressing what thousands across the country are now pointing out as an unprofessional and untruthful practice at the very least? Will his own readers have to wait as long as BB's book to hear Mr Rhoden's explanation?

Unless he and the Times answer to this, they are rank hypocrites.

 

[condon84]

Pretty funny stuff: Did 'The New York Times' Make a Column About the New England Patriots Disappear? (VIDEO)

EDIT: Oops, just saw that Shmessy already posted the video.

 

[Hoodie]

Bill Simmons tweeted that this should be a bigger story and pointed to an article on Boston Sports Media Watch but that site seems to have gone down. Not a conspiracy theorist but...

I hate that Joe Scarbrough is on our side in this. Ugh.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It will get more traction, eventually -- it's too good a story not to. Sometimes it takes a few days. People are on it.

In the meantime, maybe the silence means there are lawyers involved. If the original story was pulled for a specific reason -- let's hypothesize for a minute that the NFL objected about the claimed quote from Jeff Pash -- it certainly wouldn't be inconsistent to hear nothing until that matter is resolved, at least so long as legal action is possible. Similarly, if the paper is looking into the matter and there is a question about a particular writer or editor, they would want to finish the internal inquiry.

 

[BSR]

Look BSR, we're basically on the same page here, but you seem to fail to see that what the NYT and Rhoden did in this instance is the exact same whitewashing and cover-up they are claiming BB and the Pats did.

Actually I am totally on the same page with what you wrote here. I wasn't trying to justify what they were trying to do. I was just trying to clarify that the didn't put the corrections there to highlight that there was a previous article. They are trying to pretend like that previous article ever existed. Not a real big distinction.

 

[shmessy]

Actually I am totally on the same page with what you wrote here. I wasn't trying to justify what they were trying to do. I was just trying to clarify that the didn't put the corrections there to highlight that there was a previous article. They are trying to pretend like that previous article ever existed. Not a real big distinction.

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[Clonamery]

Okay, who changed Wikipedia?!?!

"Rhoden's writing is often unbalanced, unresearched and biased. A classic example of that can be seen in his article about the "Decline of the Patriots" in the New York Times, just prior to the Patriots - Jets game on Monday Night Football. The "declining" patriots were 9-2 going in, tied for the best record within the AFC, and proceeded to dismantle the Jets 45-3."

William C. Rhoden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hoodie]

Okay, who changed Wikipedia?!?!

"Rhoden's writing is often unbalanced, unresearched and biased. A classic example of that can be seen in his article about the "Decline of the Patriots" in the New York Times, just prior to the Patriots - Jets game on Monday Night Football. The "declining" patriots were 9-2 going in, tied for the best record within the AFC, and proceeded to dismantle the Jets 45-3."

William C. Rhoden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes you just gotta love the internet.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Okay, who changed Wikipedia?!?!

"Rhoden's writing is often unbalanced, unresearched and biased. A classic example of that can be seen in his article about the "Decline of the Patriots" in the New York Times, just prior to the Patriots - Jets game on Monday Night Football. The "declining" patriots were 9-2 going in, tied for the best record within the AFC, and proceeded to dismantle the Jets 45-3."

William C. Rhoden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is awesome. Who says Wikipedia isn't accurate?