Nobody should be surprised. Writing fiction to help the GOP is now kind of the mission of the NYT.
This is the NYT piece that all the righties were just breathlessly parroting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0
But that's not how the original article read. Here's how the NYT is quietly correcting it now, long after the horse has left the barn.
---
Editors’ Note: December 18, 2015
The original version of this article, based on accounts from law enforcement officials, reported that Tashfeen Malik had “talked openly on social media” about her support for violent jihad.
On Wednesday, however, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that online communications about jihad by Ms. Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, involved “direct, private messages.” His remarks indicated that the comments about jihad were not made in widely accessible social media posts.
Law enforcement officials subsequently told The Times that Ms. Malik communicated with her husband in emails and private messages, and on a dating site. Ms. Malik’s comments to Mr. Farook about violent jihad were made on a messaging platform, officials said. Neither Mr. Comey nor other officials identified the specific platforms that were used. (This article and headline have been revised to reflect the new information.)
---
That is, the NYT got the original story totally wrong. There was no public talk of jihad on social media. Yep, another NYT "mistake". Strangely, all such "mistakes" by the NYT push the GOP agenda. Go fig. For example, two of the authors here, Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt, reported for the NYT in July that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation by the FBI. Same deal. The right wing went nuts over it, with some people here still repeating that story. Trouble is, the story was fictional.
Those two reporters? They still have their jobs. Apparently, the NYT has no problem with their reporters repeatedly faking stories for the GOP. But then, they NYT has such a proud history of shilling for the right, with their crowning achievement being when they willingly helped Bush sell the Iraq war.
This is the NYT piece that all the righties were just breathlessly parroting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...ocial-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0
But that's not how the original article read. Here's how the NYT is quietly correcting it now, long after the horse has left the barn.
---
Editors’ Note: December 18, 2015
The original version of this article, based on accounts from law enforcement officials, reported that Tashfeen Malik had “talked openly on social media” about her support for violent jihad.
On Wednesday, however, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that online communications about jihad by Ms. Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, involved “direct, private messages.” His remarks indicated that the comments about jihad were not made in widely accessible social media posts.
Law enforcement officials subsequently told The Times that Ms. Malik communicated with her husband in emails and private messages, and on a dating site. Ms. Malik’s comments to Mr. Farook about violent jihad were made on a messaging platform, officials said. Neither Mr. Comey nor other officials identified the specific platforms that were used. (This article and headline have been revised to reflect the new information.)
---
That is, the NYT got the original story totally wrong. There was no public talk of jihad on social media. Yep, another NYT "mistake". Strangely, all such "mistakes" by the NYT push the GOP agenda. Go fig. For example, two of the authors here, Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt, reported for the NYT in July that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation by the FBI. Same deal. The right wing went nuts over it, with some people here still repeating that story. Trouble is, the story was fictional.
Those two reporters? They still have their jobs. Apparently, the NYT has no problem with their reporters repeatedly faking stories for the GOP. But then, they NYT has such a proud history of shilling for the right, with their crowning achievement being when they willingly helped Bush sell the Iraq war.
Does anyone know what a "patsy" is?
