Welcome to PatsFans.com

The New York Times-nope no agenda here

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsWSB47, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +172 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    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?
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2007
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,056
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    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/content/news/stories/2007/03/27/3_27_1A_False_Iraq_story.html
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,762
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +359 / 11 / -27

    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.
  4. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +172 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    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?
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    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.
    :bricks:
  6. patriotspride

    patriotspride Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,214
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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 .
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2007
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    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.
  8. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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). :rofl:
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,099
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 6 / -2

    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/content/news/stories/2007/03/27/3_27_1A_False_Iraq_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.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,056
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    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?
  11. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +172 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    (1). The Times gets a pass becasue it's liberal
    (2). Fox isn't convinsing becasue it's conservative
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,056
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    So, you don't hold Fox to any standard? They say the Times knew the story was wrong before it was printed, and that's enough for you? You don't need any more information than that? No wonder Fox features Anna Nicole -- it's fans have incredibly low standards. I suppose Fox does speak for conservatives in that regard.
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    I've been called stupid, ignored and blocked for saying things like that, liberals refuse to accept the fact that there are millions of Americans that don't think like they do.

    GW Bush has driven them all insane including the NY Times, Walter Cronkook crys himself to sleep every night, they still can't bring themselves to believe that GW Bush is the President Of The United States and when they try to disgrace and crucify him all he does is go on TV and Grin at them.

    Free The Women In Iraq
    Stop Throwing Human Beings Off Rooftops
    Stop Tongue Removal's

    Hooray "George Bush And America To The Rescue, God Is Great Praise Allah"
    :bricks:
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,524
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    Now this piece is, in fact, evidently an op-ed piece. It is an essay, basically, not a hard news story, and not to be taken as such.

    Because this is the case, the op-ed writer is not expected to quote or speak to both sides of the issue. And we are not expected to take his bloody word for it.

    I notice that the same poster just put up a CNN article which is replete with quotes from administration sources, thereby giving at least the administration's side of the story. This same poster says the CNN article shouldn't be considered news, because it is so biased. My question, then, is whether the administration sources, and people quoted who exonnerate the administration in that story, are also biased against the administration.

    The Right's been playing this "wahh poor me, look at the terrible liberal media!" game for far too long. First of all, the "biased liberal media" takes care to engage in real journalism, as opposed to the pablum these same whiners gobble up unquestioningly from administration mouthpieces like Fox, and drug addled contextless wonders like Rush.

    What crap.The real complaint here is that people can see the facts, as opposed to whatever the latest conservamessiah preaches as the Word.

    PFnV
  15. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,878
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +172 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    The NY times piece was an editorial piece and my complaint isn't about weather they gave both the sides or not.

    And the CNN "news story", I know I'm right about it. You can spin this into the"well Fox news does this and Fox news does that" gymnastics, but teaser and headline baiting does sway perceptipn. It is calculated to create a cerain flavor that reflects the opinion of the writer/agency which they in turn hope to sway the opinion of the readers.

    This is what I replied to another poster about the CNN piece.

    Your opinion is valid in that we know it's an opinion and we can therefore read it with that in mind. The problem with this and pieces like this, and yes Fox does it as well, is that the teaser and headline tell the reader how the article should be looked at. We're told in the teaser that Bush has steered to talking about energy as a response to politcal firestorms. Then the same "news" is stated slightly differently in the headline.The entire first paragraph of the story does'nt even mention ethenol. All it talks about is the attorney thing
    and the war spending bill. This type Of "journalism" is not news reporting, it is news creating. The energy discussion is almost lost because the reader is has been told basically to take this with a grain of salt because we all know what the true purpose is behind the energy discussion.
    You're journalism lesson of presenting both sides is fine, but just as the way
    a question is asked can change the results of a poll, so can the teaser, headline and opening paragraph of a story sway the publics perception of the "news" its reporting on.

    If this story was about Hillary Clinton and it was on foxnews.com I would be telling you the same thing. Headlines that are intended to create a negative or positive opinion about the upcoming story is not journalism and belongs in the opinion section
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    Bush has driven them all nuts at the "Liberal NY Times".

    It says at the end of this story that employees can't understand why the "uppity in your face arrogant women" that started this fight hasn't been Disciplined, I bet can tell you why and so can some of you but it isn't politically correct to say it, "shhhhhhhhh"

    Yesterday at the NY Times Insane Asylum:
    A catfight at The New York Times Friday still has staffers in shock.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r...violent_clash_of_styles_disrupts_the_tim.html

    This is a liberal Bush Hater at the NY Times--------------->:bricks: :singing:
  17. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I haven't heard one single word about this from the MSM... thank God for the internet - now the corrupt liberals can't continue to lie to all of us in the guise of "news".

    The only place I heard this mentioned on TV was Bill O'Reilly. But he's on FOX and he's Bill O'Reilly so he must be lying and biased, whereas the NY Times is completely objective.
  18. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The evidence that the Times "knew the truth earlier" is that the story was known to be a lie by the rest of the world before the Times even remotely approached the notion that gee, just maybe it wasn't true.

    You are such a liberal apologist it's hilarious..!! :rofl: Newsflash: The proper conduct when as error is discovered is to issue a retraction immediately.

    Ah yes... more whining about how biased Fox News is... but Dan Rather and the NY Times are completely impartial, unbiased sources, right Patters...? Right...?
  19. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Because the NY Times is the most liberal ragsheet of propaganda in the country, that's why.
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,163
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +659 / 2 / -9

    CBS,NBC,ABC,PBS, Boston Globe,LA Times,NY Times, imagine all the slanted one sided left wing sh!t these biased bastards fed us for all those years and we believed it.

    Thank God for Progress, Thank God For Al Gore's Invention,
    "The Internet" Thank God for talk radio, Fox News, Cable and the Blogger that sent Dan Rodent Rather into Liars Oblivion.

    God Is Great (old muslim proverb)
    :bricks:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>