I wonder how many journalists are just dying to get a “Dems in disarray!” article out there?
13 Likes
Sternberg concluded his editor’s note by determining that Navarro’s op-ed failed to meet USA Today’s fact-checking standards
But they published it anyways. Anything short of Stemberg resignation would be insufficient. He publish a pail of shit article from known fabulist that not even the WSJ would touch, and he did it to please the President and his fan base, now that President has distanced himself, Sternberg is being exposed for the fraud that he is. He should be tar and feathers and driven out of town in a beam.
19 Likes
Oi, Mr. Sternberg, what the actual fuck, man? C’mon, Bill, grow a pair. It’s an editorial. It went out on the pages of your rag. Own it.
It’s not up to your publication’s standards? Guess what! It wasn’t any better before it went out.
Apply your standards before publishing, Bill. Something comes in from someone that high-profile, look at it your own damned self. Have the staff get on the fact-check. And if you really want to publish it to give ‘readers another point of view’ and ‘because it expanded on [earlier] comments, put an on-the-record name to the attacks on Fauci, and contradicted White House denials of an anti-Fauci campaign’ then you say that in an editor’s note at the beginning of the goddamned article.
You explain that the piece doesn’t meet USA Today’s fact-checking standards, you footnote every single fucking time he tells the reader something that’s bullshit, and you be a goddamned journalist. Someone sent me this, this morning, Mr. Steinberg, but I think you can get more use out of it:
27 Likes
Didn’t we just hear the same from the NYT? Here’s how it seems to work. The paper receives an Op-ed that looks “real good” to editorial staff but not for it’s content. But as a stealth outreach to extremists and Trumpers. So they put it on paper. Then huge blow back follows and low and behold…the guys that thought the bit a great shot at increasing audience suddenly agree “it did not meet standards”. I’m pretty sure NYT and USA Today have editors. Seems those editors don’t meet standards either.
17 Likes
So Trump, facing a backlash, throws Navarro under the bus. What a surprise. This is as predictable as Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown. Don’t these people ever learn. Republicans are insane, they keep running the same play and expecting a different outcome.
7 Likes
Is there any difference between editing and publishing? Is there such a thing as retroactive editing? Crowd-sourced editing? Is there any way to get things done right on the first try?
This gives me some teaching ideas.
– Okay, Tommy, you got 8 percent on your first attempt at Exam 1. Do you want to try again?
– Sure, Teach. What I gotta do to get a A?
– Well, just do your best. Remember, we can keep retaking the exam until we get a satisfactory outcome. Just remember that there are four more exams after this one, and we don’t want to spend too much of our time focusing on Exam 1.
– Okay, can I retake it right away?
– Sure, Tommy, if you think you can do significantly better this time.
– Okay, I know I will.
– I like that positive attitude!
5 Likes
How many buses can one person be thrown underneath?
3 Likes
Since when does USA Today have standards?
11 Likes
everyone nows Trump would have approved of the op-ed. But his not having seen it lets him deny it. So he’s happy both ways. Good op-ed. Good enial
2 Likes
Navarro’s Op-Ed didn’t go through ‘White House normal processes’ nor did it meet USA Today’s ‘editorial standards’ and yet - MAGICALLY - the hit piece on Fauci was still published and has been amplified across social media for several days. 
This type of propaganda dissemination is how we ended up with Trump, and many other Republicans, in the first place. Disinformation is literally killing us.
25 Likes
It’s a good thing they decided not to publish it, no wait.
9 Likes
How many you got?
2 Likes
As many as Navarro is willing to get run over by, I guess.
2 Likes
I’m told the NYT has completely axed their copyediting department, leaving the task to the automated spelling and grammar-check systems in their WYSIWYG editors (probably WordPress on their intranet, considering it’s low-cost).
It wouldn’t surprise me if what little editorial department is left below the level of Managing Editor, Daytime Editor, Evening Editor, Overnight Editor, and EIC is completely swamped with just the actual hard news division, and has to let the editorial pages fuck right off and do whatever.
At both publications.
Which don’t make it right. It just makes it cheap.
Demand better. Demand editors. Demand copyeditors. Demand proper staffing. And then be ready to pay for it, because people not paying for it is why they’re cutting costs.
7 Likes
Bill Sternberg, is not honorable. He allowed a political hit totally made up of BS against the country’s top epidemiologist during a pandemic. Will he publish in the benefit of both sides of the story and newsworthiness my op-ed describing all the perversions that Trump subjected his daughters? I can provide fake links to back up each one my statements
5 Likes
“failed to meet their fact checking standards…”
And yet they published it. 
9 Likes
So the guy who admitted only recently that Ron Vara in his books was made up (anagram of Navarro) didn’t meet your editorial standards? You’d have published it if his byline had been Ron Vara I betcha.
5 Likes
Disagree. I think the fact that the op-ed seems to be backfiring so spectacularly speaks for itself. Steinberg practically says as much. Hell, it might even put Navarro in the crosshairs.
It’s an op-ed. AN OPINION-EDITORIAL. It doesn’t have to be held to the same factual standards as news. And Steinberg didn’t publish it because he things “both sides” have equal merit. He did it because it’s important to know what vile people are thinking too.
I do wish, however, that USA Today would have included some fact checking to accompany the editorial. But we have to stop demanding that people resign because we don’t agree with everything. Cancel culture is way tf out of control.
https://reason.com/2020/07/14/gary-garrels-san-francisco-museum-modern-art-racism/
3 Likes
Sternberg wrote that the decision to publish Navarro’s op-ed is part of USA Today’s “longstanding tradition” of giving “readers another point of view” and that the newspaper reached out to Navarro individually. Navarro’s op-ed was published soon after USA Today’s editorial board praised Fauci for being a “national treasure” and sharply criticized recent White House efforts to discredit him.
So they said he was doing a good job, and so felt that it was absolutely necessary to balance that out by finding some idiot to say he was terrible? These fuckin’ people, I swear…
5 Likes
And just like with the NYT this week all that needs to happen now is a right-wing hack quits USA Today so that FOX news can run 4 stories a day that pop up on my iPhone all from one side about how intolerant USA Today is to conservatives.
4 Likes