• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Does The NY TIMES Verify ANYTHING??????????????

Mike

Well-known member
New York Times Apologizes for Publishing Phony Letter From Paris Mayor
FoxNews.com ^ | Monday, December 22, 2008



NEW YORK -- The New York Times admitted Monday it published a fake letter purportedly from the mayor of Paris criticizing Caroline Kennedy's bid for a U.S. Senate seat as "appalling" and "not very democratic."

In a note posted Monday on its Web site, the Times said the letter signed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe was a fake and should not have been published because it violated the paper's standards and procedures for publishing signed letters.


(
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Does The NY TIMES Verify ANYTHING??????????????

Yes - it proves that it no longer is fit to be the impartial leader of news it once was. That is why no one takes them seriously anymore.

Reputation is everything - their's is pretty much gone.

BC
 

fff

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Does The NY TIMES Verify ANYTHING??????????????



Reputation is everything - their's is pretty much gone.

BC

ROTFLMAO! After what's been posted on this board: Obama's a (multiple choice question here) Mulsim, Anti-Christ, Socialist, etc?

After Mike's post about Schumer with absolutely nothing to back it up.

And you tut tut, the loss of the NYTImes reputation! :lol: :lol:
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
fff said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Does The NY TIMES Verify ANYTHING??????????????



Reputation is everything - their's is pretty much gone.

BC

ROTFLMAO! After what's been posted on this board: Obama's a (multiple choice question here) Mulsim, Anti-Christ, Socialist, etc?

After Mike's post about Schumer with absolutely nothing to back it up.

And you tut tut, the loss of the NYTImes reputation! :lol: :lol:

You may or may not noted - I tend to stay out of the political discussion unless I actually have a question or something that I believe might add to the thread - I also actively avoid entering discussions with some people.

But .....

As a person who tends to sit in strange parts of the world for a great part of his life and wonder what the heck is going on - and used to actively scavenge this paper from various airport - yes I do.

There are a lot of us folks out here who truly did read it - because when you cannot find out anything about North America - you tend to grab on to anything you can from home. To us it was an anchor.

Now it is a rag - and you make light of it - whereas the unit I work with was actually quite disappointed.

I simply would really like to have a news outlet that is provides timely information that is not fabricated - we are generally capable of sorting out the bias and the sensationalism on our own - but if one story from a once respected media outlet is a fabrication - how many others have there been - what have we missed - with this very same newspaper?

How many lies - for and against the politician of your choice have they published?

Could you not agree with that or will my comments lead to me being in the middle of a spiteful, mud slinging, free for all with you for actually stating how I believe this is important?

Or you can just laugh at me - add more smilies - for considering this is a bad thing?

The fact remains that when something as once well respected as the NY Times goes down hill - caught in lies and cheating - we are truly on the slippery slopes.

Laugh at me if you wish - to me this is a travesty and an indicator of things to come. No matter your political stripe - surely this is important?

Merry Christmas

BC
 

fff

Well-known member
After all the lies that have been posted here about Obama, Clinton, and the Dems in general, you're not going to get much sympathy from me about a newpaper making a mistake. At the very least, they acknowledged it and apologized for it. The NYT even apologized for their coverage leading up to the Iraq War. I didn't see any other publication do that.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1230181200&en=359a6441b647380a&ei=5070

And Merry Christmas to you, too. :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
After all the lies that have been posted here about Obama, Clinton, and the Dems in general, you're not going to get much sympathy from me about a newpaper making a mistake. At the very least, they acknowledged it and apologized for it. The NYT even apologized for their coverage leading up to the Iraq War. I didn't see any other publication do that.

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1230181200&en=359a6441b647380a&ei=5070

And Merry Christmas to you, too. :D

When you say "Lies about the Dems in general", are you referring to the claim somebody made about them closing the Enron loophole?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

I think alot of newspapers will be writing the exact same thing about Obama, in a couple of years, might not even take that long.
 

VanC

Well-known member
fff said:
After all the lies that have been posted here about Obama, Clinton, and the Dems in general, you're not going to get much sympathy from me about a newpaper making a mistake.

There is no way this comparison can be considered valid. Lies and misinformation posted on an internet political forum is one thing. But when lies, misinformation, and extreme bias comes from the so-called "newspapaer of record" that's still read by millions of people, it's a whole different story. Seems they've made many such "mistakes". They've hastily printed too many stories later found to be untrue, both to make an enemy look bad and to make an ally look good, to keep giving them a free pass. If there's been a retraction at all, it's usually buried deep inside, not on the front page where the story was. There are many reasons for the demise of the NY Times, some that they have no control over, but the public's lack of trust in them is certainly a factor.
 
Top