Discussion for article #238793
Any more proof needed as to what a worthless rag the NYT has become?
11 Likes
So, itâs not their fault that their âvery good sourcesâ were wrong⌠even when they failed to ask anyone else for confirmation?
The Dems on the Benghazi committee expressed astonishment that the Times didnât talk to them before publishing⌠since they already knew the correct facts and could have set the Times straight before they published.
In short, the Times regurgitated propaganda spoon-fed to them by Gowdy and other partisan manipulators, then act all shocked when it turns out GOP leaks werenât accurate.
38 Likes
âLiberalâ media, indeed.
11 Likes
The NYT has a longstanding beef with the Clintons, and never misses an opportunity to go after them.
This little farrago of lies and misinformation is the inevitable result.
Itâs the sort of crap I expect from NRO or one of the other usual right-wing suspects.
The NYT needs to get its shit together and stop doing the biddingâintentionally or not---- of Trey Gowdy and the rest of the Republican liars.
26 Likes
âYou had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,â Baquet told Sullivan. âIâm not sure what they could have done differently on that.â
How about checking to see which particular part of the âgovernmentâ was providing the information and what their particular bias might have been. You know, investigating the story rather than just taking your âgovernment sourcesâ word for it. Thatâs the difference between journalism and stenography.
23 Likes
The piece Josh linked over the weekend (or maybe late Friday) on this unraveling does an excellent job, paragraph by paragraph, of showing how this was more than just âoops, our source gave us a wrong bit of informationâ
It was a very deliberate attempt to smear Hillary and nothing more. Nobody ever claimed there was a call for a criminal investigationâŚexcept for this fantasy government official that the NYT created out of thin air. The few actual FOIA sources that can be, you know, sourced, make it very clear that this was merely an investigation into how the current State Dept is classifying her emails in response to FOIA requests. As that reporter puts it, its sort of like complaining about the first owner of your car because your current mechanic is screwing it up.
20 Likes
âYou had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,â Baquet told Sullivan. âIâm not sure what they could have done differently on that.â
An anonymous source is now âthe governmentâ?
Seriously, high school newspapers know better than that
17 Likes
And it wasnât Judith Millerâs fault that the âgovernmentâ was wrong about WMDâs either that she breathlessly reportedâŚ
If your source burns you this bad you donât owe them anonymity nor should you ever trust them again.
18 Likes
The New York Times appended a second correction over the weekend to a story it published last week about an investigation into Hillary Clintonâs private email account that she used at the State Department. ⌠An editor involved with the story, Matt Purdy, told Sullivan that the newspaper botched the story âbecause our very good sources had it wrong.â
Correction? Iâm thinking some people at the Times need to add the word Retraction to their vocabulary.
19 Likes
Out your sources or STFU.
Do it or theyâll pull the same BS next time.
8 Likes
Dean Baquet agreed that the blame for the bad information shouldnât lay with the reporters and editors on the story! THIS REVEALS the NYT is only interested in their own reputation while they continue to perpetuate the same smear job on Hillary that happened with Watergate! IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET Margaret Sullivan and Dean Baquet to publish more about the NYT smear affect has on the trust issues for Hillary, Iâd be interested to see just how much Hillaryâs unfavorables have dropped after the âcriminalâ story originally broke! These things have farreaching effects. Heck, Matt Drudge may have just as well written these stories and had a NYT reporter publish them; the results are the same.
3 Likes
Not only that, the actual IG documents are public and the NYT could have gotten them themselves, as Eichenwald did. No need to rely on âsourcesâ. Thatâs what really exposes it as a sham.
16 Likes
If you screw up this badly and canât figure out what you should have done differently, perhaps a career change is in order; youâre obviously incompetent.
10 Likes
Could not disagree more. Still a great newspaper, but a few there - probably higher-ups - have a boner for Hillary, thatâs for sure.
This statement reminds me of the âall politicians are badâ or âall our servicemen are saintsâ stuff. Itâs never that black & white. There is still great journalism at the NYT. This sure as hell isnât it, though.
3 Likes
Baquet apparently fails to understand the distinction between the government and a politician.
13 Likes
âour very good sources had it wrongâŚâ
Hopefully they will no longer be considered good sources, eh?
11 Likes
We should send the newsroom framed photos of Bob Lewis and Dena Potter.
4 Likes
Exactly. Consider the traditional reasons for keeping a source anonymous was to prevent them from being killed, thrown in jail, fired, etc. Serious repercussions for talking to the media.
Here they are being kept secret because it might embarrass them, possibly lose credibility going forward. By keeping them anonymous, the NYT is bearing the brunt of those repercussions insteadâŚthey ARE being embarrassed and they ARE losing credibility.
10 Likes
âExecutive editor Dean Baquet agreed that the blame for the bad information shouldnât lay with the reporters and editors on the story.â
Bull. See also, shit.
Itâs a media outletâs responsibility to verify source material. The NYT didnât do that.
Itâs a reporterâs job to provide readers with the facts as they are known. The articles were full of innuendo.
Itâs an editorâs job to, well, edit. The story read like a bad crime novel. Even as others got the story right, the NYT continued with its erroneous version.
The next âcorrectionâ should be a full retraction and a public apology to Mrs. Clinton.
14 Likes