Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.....
The Jayson Blair Project. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine
A few years ago, Michael Finkel's journalism career was as dead as yesterday's newspaper because he had lied in an article for the New York Times Magazine. Today, the 36-year-old Bozeman, Mont., resident has banked a half- million dollar advance on his first book, sold its film rights to Brad Pitt's production company and has a year-old marriage with a baby on the way.
After getting fired by the New York Times for lying in print, a reporter stumbled on the story of his life
By Amy Westfeldt, Associated Press
The New York Times' ombudsman said the newspaper should review reporter Judith Miller's journalism practices to address "clear issues of trust and credibility" in her role in the CIA leak investigation. Miller's attorney called the newspaper's recent criticism of her "shameless."
Times Public Editor Byron Calame also said the paper should consider updating its ethics guidelines on using anonymous sources and quoted publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as saying "there are new limits" on what Miller can do in the future.
Calame wrote in a Sunday column that the Times and Miller's Oct. 16 accounts of the reporting that landed Miller in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury "suggested that the journalistic practices of Ms. Miller and Times editors were more flawed than I feared."
Miller went to jail for 85 days rather than testify to a grand jury investigating the leaking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after her source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from a promise of confidentiality.
NYT Updates Its Ethics: Lie Or Be Fired | Sweetness & Light
Barbara Stewart, former freelance reporter for The Boston Globe, was dismissed this week after adding fictitious details to a story about events which actually did not occur at the time of her writing. The Boston Globe's Executive Editor Helen Donovan called the incident a "significant breach" and said, "We should have noticed the lack of attribution on a couple of key facts and should have asked questions we didn't ask."
Stewart has been a reporter for The New York Times' Metro Desk between October, 1994 and May, 2004; according to the Boston Herald, the Times denied that Stewart fabricated any parts of stories while she was employed there. This was Stewart's third article for the Globe.
Freelance reporter fired from Boston Globe for adding fictitious details to story - Wikinews, the free news source
So yes, I'd say there is a credibility problem with NYT...
Last week, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair joined Janet Cooke, formerly of the Washington Post, the New Republic's Stephen Glass, the Boston Globe's Patricia Smith, and Jay Forman in Slate as journalists who got caught embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print. The will to fabricate cuts across disciplines, with academics and scientists inventing data, too. Last year, Emory University history professor Michael A. Bellesiles resigned following an investigation of charges that he concocted evidence to support his book Arming America, and Bell Labs fired researcher Jan Hendrik Schon when it discovered he made up scientific data and published it.....
The Jayson Blair Project. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine
A few years ago, Michael Finkel's journalism career was as dead as yesterday's newspaper because he had lied in an article for the New York Times Magazine. Today, the 36-year-old Bozeman, Mont., resident has banked a half- million dollar advance on his first book, sold its film rights to Brad Pitt's production company and has a year-old marriage with a baby on the way.
After getting fired by the New York Times for lying in print, a reporter stumbled on the story of his life
By Amy Westfeldt, Associated Press
The New York Times' ombudsman said the newspaper should review reporter Judith Miller's journalism practices to address "clear issues of trust and credibility" in her role in the CIA leak investigation. Miller's attorney called the newspaper's recent criticism of her "shameless."
Times Public Editor Byron Calame also said the paper should consider updating its ethics guidelines on using anonymous sources and quoted publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as saying "there are new limits" on what Miller can do in the future.
Calame wrote in a Sunday column that the Times and Miller's Oct. 16 accounts of the reporting that landed Miller in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury "suggested that the journalistic practices of Ms. Miller and Times editors were more flawed than I feared."
Miller went to jail for 85 days rather than testify to a grand jury investigating the leaking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after her source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from a promise of confidentiality.
NYT Updates Its Ethics: Lie Or Be Fired | Sweetness & Light
Barbara Stewart, former freelance reporter for The Boston Globe, was dismissed this week after adding fictitious details to a story about events which actually did not occur at the time of her writing. The Boston Globe's Executive Editor Helen Donovan called the incident a "significant breach" and said, "We should have noticed the lack of attribution on a couple of key facts and should have asked questions we didn't ask."
Stewart has been a reporter for The New York Times' Metro Desk between October, 1994 and May, 2004; according to the Boston Herald, the Times denied that Stewart fabricated any parts of stories while she was employed there. This was Stewart's third article for the Globe.
Freelance reporter fired from Boston Globe for adding fictitious details to story - Wikinews, the free news source
So yes, I'd say there is a credibility problem with NYT...
That background info is rather intriguing. I suppose the point you're trying to make is that the NYT has a worse track record for hiring reporters that "lie." The thing is, everyone KNOWS that Fox's signature attraction is that it, er, embellishes all the time, so what's the point of selective firing among their reporters?
When the news about Mark Sanford first broke, who at Fox decided to put a big D next to his name?
The last report I saw showed the Medicare trust would be empty in eight years and the Medicare taxes and premiums would then be insufficient to pay Medicare's bills. At that time Medicare can only be saved by either raising taxes/premiums, incurring larger deficits every year or by reducing coverage.
I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.
On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.
United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
U.S. Senate
-Joe
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Then why don't you understand that when Rasmussen does it?
Maybe you could show a little proof, from a reliable source?
Well you could start with the NY Times themselves. There the ones that admitted as much.
Which happens to be run by the rich and controlled by the rich, who will have them go off and die for their greedy agenda, but at least they'll get to be legally married. Maybe thats how you steal black votes from the Dems. 
Maybe you could show a little proof, from a reliable source?
Well you could start with the NY Times themselves. There the ones that admitted as much.
Whatever. GW didn't need 72% support to ram his agenda down our throat. Blue dogs better toe the line or suffer the wrath.
But you should know that donations are down big time to Democrats. We're basically telling them that we want to see some action before we give anymore. But keep in mind corporations are donating more than ever.
At least if we can't get anything major done with healthcare or jobs coming home or ending the war or helping unions, at least the dems will throw us a bone or two.
Maybe gays will be allowed to serve in the military
Watch that's the only thing they give us.
And then blacks won't vote for the Dems next time because they are very anti gay.
Yes, I think the public is no longer as gullible as it was then.Well you could start with the NY Times themselves. There the ones that admitted as much.
Whatever. GW didn't need 72% support to ram his agenda down our throat. Blue dogs better toe the line or suffer the wrath.
But you should know that donations are down big time to Democrats. We're basically telling them that we want to see some action before we give anymore. But keep in mind corporations are donating more than ever.
At least if we can't get anything major done with healthcare or jobs coming home or ending the war or helping unions, at least the dems will throw us a bone or two.
Maybe gays will be allowed to serve in the military
Watch that's the only thing they give us.
And then blacks won't vote for the Dems next time because they are very anti gay.
Interesting you bring up Bush and 72 percent. He had 70 percent of the country believing in the war when it started.
I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.
On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.
United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
U.S. Senate
-Joe
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.
On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.
United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
U.S. Senate
-Joe
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
Regarding Ted Kennedy, I'm sure he for years has had supplemental coverage above what even the top tier government health care program covers. His brain tumor is only the latest in a slew of illnesses. Sure, anyone can opt for that kind of catastrophic coverage assuming we have thousands to spend on premiums.
Oh please, Iran Contra, war in Central America, Nuns shoved out of planes. The US couldn't survive another Ronnie.WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.
The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.
But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.
Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.
Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters
You knew of course that The New York Times (unbiased rag that it is), over sampled Obama voters about 2 to 1 right?
Reagan ended the middle class. Until 1981 a single paycheck could support a family and buy a house.Oh please, Iran Contra, war in Central America, Nuns shoved out of planes. The US couldn't survive another Ronnie.
Yes it would be awful if people got to keep more of what they earned and the economy grew.
Investigate France's system ... No waiting, specialists readily available, most people get a private hospital room, doctors make house calls, Rxs are cheaper, longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. See for yourself.Social medicine bad.
Social bureaucracy to track payments to private medical professionals good.
-Joe
No. Neither is good. I don't want to wait hours when I should only have to wait minutes. I don't want a shortage of doctors, medical equipment, etc. which govt run care would produce imo.
Amazing a right winger who doesn't trust the NYT.I would question the validity of anything the New York Times posted.
I never said it didn't need help, I said it was self funded - meaning it did not rely on the general tax revenues.
On a side note, speaking of re-building Medicare (or building a new system), the first step in making it fair and reasonable for all of us is for YOU to write YOUR CongressCritters and DEMAND that Federal Employees (including all CongressCritters) be participants in what ever health insurance system that they lay on the rest of us.
United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
U.S. Senate
-Joe
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?
That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?
just below Costa Rica.That will never happen Joe. They know they would have to step down from an excellent coverage program to a so-so one that is going to be shoved on us. Do you really believe Ted Kennedy would be getting state of the art, cutting edge treatment on his terminal brain cancer he is getting now under the coverage that will be proposed for us? People need to be awake on this healthcare system that we're going to end up with.
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
Worst outcomes? How so?
Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.
Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.
No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?
I have sad assed coverage now, and I pay for it with my employer. Between what I pay, what the deductible is, and the copay, I still have to think two or three times before I go to the doc. I save it for my kids. If you're insulted by the reality dealt with daily by the vast majority who don't enjoy the platinum coverage you enjoy, or have no coverage at all (and before you start, the majority of them work damned hard for a living, often at more than one job) , by all means don't look. And the "success stories" you mention? They are for the insured. My brother died of cancer, so I'm pretty well versed on what is covered, how it is classified by our lovely insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and the letter he wrote to Governor Bush of Florida asking him if the Medicaid system was waiting for him to die before they covered him for palliative care. As for broken bones, no one goes to their primary care physician for that. You're throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick. We have triage to decide what's an emergency now, that little feature isn't likely to be thrown out the window under a public option.
