Discussion for article #243930
1 Like
Just admit when you’ve made a f*ing mistake, NYT. This reminds me of the Hilary Clinton criminal investigation fiasco.
17 Likes
The legacy of Judith Miller lives on. Why anyone would take anything coming from the NYT at face value at this point is beyond me. Josh tries to be nice about it…but I’ve just moved on.
11 Likes
The Times needs to fire the reporters, and maybe an editor. This is their second big mistake. This one has reverberated negatively across the country and has been falsely repeated on all the RW sites to the detriment of our country.
19 Likes
And their “fix” is still incorrect. The new headline reads:
U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Online Zealotry.
This still leaves the impression that she was posting stuff publicly, or that the visa process could have read about her zealotry. So even the “correction” is half-assed. What a clusterfuck.
24 Likes
Why not just fire the two assholes that got it so wrong and put the third writer on unpaid leave until a thorough review is done as to how the NYT could allow this article to be printed, knowing beforehand it was all bullshit? How many times do the same writers have to fuck up in order to be taken off the paper of record, and not allowed to disseminate false and misleading information, or worse, outright lies?
I see the re-emergence of another couple of Jayson Blairs at the NYT, and the response is the same as it was then…slow to do anything about it and lame.
Its a pity the article was used as a main focus for the last Republican debate by most of the candidates for their constant fear-mongering. But then, that was probably no coincidence.
9 Likes
“Tomato, to-mah-toe, let’s call the whole thing off.” As many have noted, this has become a pattern with the “Newspaper of Record,” going all the way back to their antics during Whitewater, moving through Judith Miller’s lies and the recent attempt to smear Mrs. Clinton. Let’s hope they keep getting caught, but unfortunately, to quote the execrable Cokie Roberts, “It’s out there!” Damage done, plenty of time for apologies and editorial cya.
6 Likes
True. Most people don’t read beyond the headline when they think they’ve already read the story once. The new headline should have read in big bold letters on the front page:
WE GOT IT WRONG ON THE SAN BERNARDINO STORY
With a subtitle underneath saying:
THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN
How hard is that?
9 Likes
The NYT is still at it. Page 2 article in the Seattle Times (from NYT) titled “Neighbor of San Bernadino attackers arrested, charged”.
Guy sounds like a total nut case in the throes of a nervous breakdown while the NYT writers (Nagourney, Perez Pena, and Lovett) are having a collective orgasm as they visibly drool over all the strangely fantastic and over the top details.
1 Like
Still, this immediately came to mind:
What beast was ’t, then,
That made you break this enterprise to me?
When you durst do it, then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man.
Nor time nor place did then adhere, and yet you would make both.
They have made themselves, and that their fitness now does unmake you.
I have given suck, and know how tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me.
I would, while it was smiling in my face, have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums and dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you have done to this.
I’ve got a better idea than just firing the reporters. Burn their source. There are people in law enforcement who apparently make a habit of telling falsehoods to reporters for prestige, power and agenda. And it’s really not good for anyone.
5 Likes
It’s a classic case of throw a turd… smell everything up… and when that was determined to be inappropriate, the damage is done. Everything stinks.
They need to have a vat of PooPourri at the ready.
2 Likes
New York Times, alias "Lying Weasel Times."
More like a Jayson Blair/Judith Miller hybrid – this one apparently has actual sources, but they all seem to be GOP moles. Seriously, the emails and now this: has Michael Schmidt had a hand in any story that isn’t a factually challenged smear of either Clinton or the administration?
4 Likes
All the corrections and re-explanations will not make one iota of difference once the first lie is made. Once the lie is stated it will be restated and restated over and over in various forms until it has become part of history as correct.
Joseph Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from
the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one
fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine
itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Adolf Hitler: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
2 Likes
The Times handled this horribly. The whole premise of the story was wrong. They have to get over their defensiveness when something like this happens and not just do the bare minimum to avoid having any details wrong.
–The overall structure and tone of the revised story still conveys the message that there was a failure on the part of government. Why else would the Times be writing 1500 words about this? (And in fact, they never would have written 1500 words if they had gotten the story right in the first place. Which is why they should have retracted the story rather than rewritten it.)
–Referring to the wife’s activity “online” is really weasally – technically not incorrect but still giving the readers the false impression that she was posting in a public venue.
–There was nothing about the editor’s note and the revised story on the Times home page last night, and there isn’t anything now. The original story made a huge splash and had five days to do its damage. But no one will see the corrected story unless they go looking for it.
–Instead of a link to the revised story, the home page last night had a link to a new story about yesterday’s congressional hearings into the government’s “failure” in social-media screening of visa applicants – hearings that never would have been held without the original botched story. So through its home-page story play, the Times yesterday was choosing to reinforce the false premise and bury the corrected story.
1 Like
It’s also possible it was a semantics thing. Someone interpreted “online” as “social media”? No excuse for that, but I think firing is a bit harsh.
Key details of the story have been changed to reflect the latest information from the FBI. The headline was altered from "Visa Screening Missed an Attacker’s Zealotry on Social Media” to “U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Online Zealotry.”
The NY Times “news” department has settled on the narrative that political correctness was to blame for letting the terrorist attacks happen, and they’re not going to let the facts that prove they screwed up horribly get in the way of their preferred narrative.
Can’t put the shit back in the dog and the NYT knows it. This was deliberate and cannot now be expunged from the beliefs of those who wanted to hear something like the original incorrect story.
5 Likes
The Times has really gone down hill. They keep making shit up and printing it - bad press.