MSM/DNC Once Again

[Annie]

http://nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/44134.htm

REPORTING 101

April 9, 2005-The New York Times Wednesday pub lished an apology of sorts for its re cent news article on a questionable report that absolved Columbia University's Middle East Studies department of anti-Israel bias.

In an Editor's Note, the paper acknowledged that its reporter had been given an advance copy of the whitewash "on the condition that the writer not seek reaction from other interested parties."

In other words, the Times agreed not speak to anyone who might challenge the report's contents until after the article had been published.

And so it was: The article was first published on the paper's Web site — and then on the Times' front page — without reaction except from a professor who was criticized in the report.

The paper now admits the article "should not have appeared" in such a one-sided and biased form because the Times has a "policy" in which "writers are not permitted to forgo follow-up reporting in exchange for information."

According to the paper, "editors and the writer did not recall the policy."

Did not recall?

It's axiomatic that every news story has at least two sides — and that reporters must do their best to report them. This isn't peculiar to The New York Times: It's the first rule of journalism — drilled into every reporter from Day One.

If the Times has reporters — and, more importantly, editors — who don't get this, then its credibility problems apparently did not end with the firing two years ago of serial fabulist Jayson Blair.

 

[insein]

Blair was simply a fall guy. Im sure they have many reporters on the payroll that right false stories and editors that back them up. Someone just had to much evidence on Blair for the NYT staff to ignore any longer. They didnt do the inverstigation themselves. someone else did and showed it to the public. NYT has become a joke of a publication for a long time. Who knows how far back it has been like this.