Discussion: NYT Public Editor: Times Needs ‘Systemic Change’ After Incorrect San Bernardino Article

Discussion for article #243953

Various Fox News personalities will likely rush to assert Obama coerced the Times into their faux retraction, under threat of whatever.

6 Likes

If the NYT had been more scrupulous about anonymous sourcing and outing deliberate obfuscaters, perhaps the Bush-Cheney Iraq War could have been averted. (Although Colin Powell would probably have also had to grow some balls and publicly tell the world he was asked to lie, too.) Remember when the NYT refused to use the word ‘torture’ because…well, I forget why exactly, other than Ed. Bill Keller thought the word was ambiguous, loaded, and controversial. I always thought his pusillanimous logic was torturous. Even so, the NYT is still an unparalleled US paper.

13 Likes

They couldn’t have used the google machine to learn about public and private messages in the internets? I heard Malik poked her husband with an octopus on the Facebook thing.

5 Likes

NYT deserves the scorn it’s getting.

But even if these statements were public and not private, it seems to me quite a stretch to imagine that the Feds could have stopped what happened in San Bernadino. Do we really think they can monitor every single post on Facebook, Google+, twitter, and the umpteen other social networking services out there? And do something every time someone uses the word “jihad”?

This attack smacks of opportunism rather than a genuine concern for the security of Americans.

16 Likes

[quote=“agio, post:5, topic:30356”]
But even if these statements were public and not private, it seems to me quite a stretch to imagine that the Feds could have stopped what happened in San Bernadino
[/quote]Yes - and the outrage if the federal government were reading FB postings of an ordinary American citizen without legally-sanctioned provocation. Admit it - this is a thorny issue and requires thoughtful discussion.

7 Likes

The damage is already done…the ad revenue collected. Just as with the Clinton hatchet-job, and the Miller stories, nothing will change, this is what the NYT stands for now.

9 Likes

Sullivan harshly condemned the piece as a “failure of sufficient
skepticism at every level of the reporting and editing process.”

This is a much better admission of serious error than the weasel-worded editor’s “note” that the Times initially published after the main contention of the article of was proved false. There are reasons to be critical of government in many things, but this article damaged people’s confidence in the government for the wrong reasons and gave Republicans an opportunity to blather about the Obama administration’s political correctness.

9 Likes

The erroneous story appeared on the front page of the Times. That’s exactly where the retraction should also appear.

17 Likes

She might as well be talking about the entire mainstream media, not just the Times.

2 Likes

Boy! You ARE late to the party, aren’t you sweets? Remember Ms. run amok? Sheesh!

Posters have said that two of the reporters on the current story were also involved in the hatch job attempted on Clinton. If that is true, they should be fired. They appear to hear what they want to hear.

7 Likes

TPM? Margaret Sullivan is not the NYTimes Editor, as you state in the headline.

NYTimes? Gosh: what’s the common denominator between this debacle and the “Clinton under investigation for e-mails” story?

Hmmm. Reliance on anonymous sources, or the failure of your reporters?

Skepticism is necessary, as Sullivan notes.

Perhaps those reporters might have to have their stories more carefully vetted, as well. Just a thought.

5 Likes

Cheney… stove piping… Judith Miller… Whitewater… carry on.

6 Likes

Margaret Sullivan is the fifth public editor appointed by The New York Times.

Here: Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo “Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of E-mail”

And here: Matt Apuzzo, Michael Schmidt, and Julia Preston “U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Online Zealotry”

Schmidt and Apuzzo need to have any story vetted extensively, since both were inaccurate and misleading in both stories.

14 Likes

Which is not the same thing as the editor. Dean Bacquet is the editor. She’s the public editor. There’s a difference.

2 Likes

They appear to hear what they want to hear.
Rather, they hear what they know their bosses will be pleased to hear. The Times’ animus to the Clintons has been long-standing, pre-dating the hires who scribbled these articles.
In any case, no one will be sanctioned, no one will be re-assigned, no one demoted, no one fired.

6 Likes

Not to mention PRIVATE emails!

So the NYTimes has seen the light.

They finally noticed the “failure of sufficient skepticism at every level of the reporting and editing process.” which has permeated their pages since at least the Whitewater days.

I’m sure it will never happen again.

1 Like