Even For the NY Times, This Is Unreal

[Annie]

someone is beginning to think, just maybe, they have a problem?

Read the whole thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17public.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

July 17, 2005
When an Explanation Doesn't Explain Enough
By BYRON CALAME

UPHOLDING the journalistic integrity of The New York Times requires a lot of care. Maintaining the perception of journalistic integrity can require even more care.

Mistakes can become a black eye for the paper, especially when established editing procedures and safeguards are bypassed. And even a forthright correction, when crafted without careful attention to the perceptions it may create, can make things worse.

Such a case occurred a little more than a week ago, when this disturbing editors' note appeared in the paper:

....

 

[freeandfun1]

Convenient how the NYTs always makes "unintentional" errors and only admit it AFTER the stories have run and already given their readers the wrong (well, the impression THEY [the NYT] wants to give, but nevertheless, the WRONG) impression. They know that the rabid libs that read the NYT will totally disregard the "correction" and will only focus on the "original" story that, most likely, the libs will claim "is the true story" and that the Captain "only changed it after threats from his superiors".

(damn, scrares me that I can think so much like a rabid lib!)

 

[Annie]

Convenient how the NYTs always makes "unintentional" errors and only admit it AFTER the stories have run and already given their readers the wrong (well, the impression THEY [the NYT] wants to give, but nevertheless, the WRONG) impression. They know that the rabid libs that read the NYT will totally disregard the "correction" and will only focus on the "original" story that, most likely, the libs will claim "is the true story" and that the Captain "only changed it after threats from his superiors".

(damn, scrares me that I can think so much like a rabid lib!)

This one from LA Times is worse, not easy but they try harder:

http://patterico.com/2005/07/16/333...substantive-error-without-issuing-correction/

7/16/2005
L.A. Times Airbrushes Web Version of Article to Fix a Substantive Error Without Issuing Correction
Filed under: Dog Trainer, Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:41 pm

The recently issued L.A. Times ethics code states: “When we make mistakes, we quickly and forthrightly correct the record.” (My emphasis.) Yet the paper has just surreptitiously fixed a substantive error in the Web version of an article — without acknowledging the error that ran in the print version.

Yesterday, I read a front-page L.A. Times story on Chief Justice Rehnquist’s announcement that he is not retiring. The article had the following false assertion (the sentence in bold type), smack-dab on Page A1:

Until July 1, the president and his aides expected that Rehnquist’s would be the seat they would have to fill.

They thought Rehnquist’s illness would force his retirement, and they intended to move quickly to replace the conservative chief justice with a reliably conservative federal appeals court judge. The leading candidates were all white men.

But when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, the White House was forced to switch gears. The president and his legal advisors broadened their search to consider several women on the federal bench. They also spoke of taking several weeks to make a decision.

Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 49, vaulted back to the top of the list because his nomination, like O’Connor’s in 1981, would be a breakthrough. President Reagan made history by naming the first woman to the Supreme Court, and Bush would like to do the same by appointing the first Latino.

So, according to The Times, Bush was considering only “white men” when he believed he’d be replacing Rehnquist. Only after O’Connor retired did he give serious consideration to minorities such as Alberto Gonzales.

This is an entirely fictional account, as anyone who has been following the process well knows. Justice O’Connor announced her retirement on July 1. Numerous reports in late June, including reports crediting White House sources, reported that Latino and women candidates were rumored to be on President Bush’s short list.

For example, a June 18 AP article named Emilio Garza as one of six candidates on Bush’s short list. The article also named Edith Jones, Alberto Gonzales, and Miguel Estrada as “plausible picks.” A June 19 Washington Post article and a June 22 Chicago Tribune article both listed Gonzales as among the top contenders, citing anonymous sources close to (or working at) the White House. And, of course, the well-connected Bill Kristol famously predicted on June 22 that O’Connor would be the first retirement, and that Gonzales would be nominated to take her spot.

Thus, available evidence suggests that the L.A. Times’s front-page claim that “[t]he leading candidates were all white men” was incorrect.

Here’s where things get interesting. The paper has issued no correction of this error. However, if you click on the link for yesterday’s front-page story, you’ll see that the “white men” claim has been altered to remove the word “white”:

They thought Rehnquist’s illness would force his retirement, and they intended to move quickly to replace the conservative chief justice with a reliably conservative federal appeals court judge. The leading candidates were all men.

That is not what the print version said. The print version said that the leading candidates were all “white men,” not simply “men.” But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a shot of the relevant portion of yesterday’s front page:

What’s going on here? Why was the word “white” removed from the online version of this article? Did someone realize that the assertion was incorrect, and have the word airbrushed from the Web version? It’s hard to imagine any other explanation.

This hardly seems consistent with the claim made in the recently issued ethics code: “When we make mistakes, we quickly and forthrightly correct the record.” There’s nothing “forthright” about this at all. The word that comes to mind is “sneaky.”

I’m writing the Readers’ Representative about this. I’ll let you know what I hear back.

UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. I hope any new readers will bookmark the main page and return often.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'll just bet the NYT regrets their "error." Their "regret" is that they got challenged on their made-up portion of the story.

It's stories like this that beget articles like the following, on why the military have absolutely no faith in the integrity of journalists.

July 18, 2005
Why They Hate Us
By Mark Yost, St. Paul Pioneer Press

The headline isn't a prelude to a column justifying why the Islamists hate Westerners so much that they're pouring into Iraq to kill our soldiers (along with innocent fellow Arabs, including Egyptian diplomats). Or defending the sleeper cells planted to blow up Madrid, London and who knows where next. Rather, it's about why most Americans, particularly soldiers, hate the media.

I decided to become a journalist when I was a soldier. I was in the U.S. Navy in the early and mid-1980s — "the glory years," as I like to say, a reference to President Ronald Reagan. As part of my duties, I went to some of the world's hot spots.

While sailing in the South China Sea, my ship picked up some refugee boat people on a rickety raft that I wouldn't take out on a lake, much less try to float across the Pacific Ocean. One of the survivors, shortly after coming up the accommodation ladder dripping wet, grabbed me (the nearest sailor), hugged me as tightly as his strength would allow, and could only murmur "thank you" through sobs of joy.

I'd then come back to the U.S. and read accounts of places I'd just been — in papers like the New York Times and Washington Post — that bore no resemblance to what I'd seen. There was one exception: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I began reading a column called "Thinking Things Over" by Vermont Connecticut Royster, one of the legends of that august page. He would later become a mentor — a god, really — and I eventually worked there.

I'm reminded of why I became a journalist by the horribly slanted reporting coming out of Iraq. Not much has changed since the mid-1980s. Substitute "insurgent" for "Sandinista," "Iraq" for "Soviet Union," "Bush" for "Reagan" and "war on terror" for "Cold War," and the stories need little editing. The U.S. is "bad," our enemies "understandable" if not downright "good."

I know the reporting's bad because I know people in Iraq. A Marine colonel buddy just finished a stint overseeing the power grid. When's the last time you read a story about the progress being made on the power grid? Or the new desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened, or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic? No, to judge by the dispatches, all the Iraqis do is stand outside markets and government buildings waiting to be blown up.

I also get unfiltered news from Iraq through an e-mail network of military friends who aren't so blinded by their own politics that they can't see the real good we're doing there. More important, they can see beyond their own navel and see the real good we're doing to promote peace and prosperity in the world. What makes this all the more ironic is the fact that the people who are fighting and dying want to stay and the people who are merely observers want to cut and run.

I feel for these soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because I'm sure they're coming home and noticing the same disconnect that I did when I served. Moreover, stories about their families and others who are here and trying to make a difference largely go unreported.

for full article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0705/yost.php3