At What Point?
Do you start to realize that trying to push an agenda cripples the truth? There is a remarkable series of corrections in the New York Times today that shows just how bad this has gotten. In an effort to paint the Bush Administration in the worst possible light, they ran a story stating that the Houston public school system was being severely strained by 30,000 Katrina evacuees. Only today they tell us that the correct number is 5,475.
That is not a small error folks. Being off by a factor of six?
Then they criticize the Small Business Administration for not loaning enough money to Katrina victims. They state the agency only gave out $336 million. Then today correct that figure to $842 million.
That is not a small error, either. That would be understating the amount by 60%.
Those kinds of "misstatements" cross a line, in my mind. They change a story critical of administration policies into outright, blatantly false propaganda. Running a correction after the screaming headlines does nothing to correct the damage the false report did. The Times knows that.
So I ask the intellectually honest people who lean left: How much of your criticism of Bush is built of the lies that outlets like the New York Times pimp? How much of what you believe to be true is actually only Times truthy?
Maybe 60% is a good starting point.
UPDATE: Powerline on the Times' corrections.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 9:23 am
It’s good news for everyone that the NY Times is running those corrections. It’s my belief that the way to increase trust in the MSM is to put accuracy first. And that starts with correcting previous errors. I would suggest they be written by the persons who made the errors.
As for the Times itself, I once had an up-close experience of it being sloppy with the facts. A reporter did a story on Oceanside, where I used to live. The story said the city was virtually a “ghost town” in light of deployment to Iraq. That was simply false. A few businesses that depended on Marines were hard-hit, but the city itself was and is thriving.
I wrote about it, but another writer at the San Diego Union Tribune op-ed“>dissected it more extensively.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 9:26 am
Er, I messed up with the link
And if my HTML is still screwed up, cut and paste this:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041007/news_1mi7jenkins.html
By Black Jack, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 10:30 am
For the Left, truth is only a tool, to be used when it supports their agenda and ignored, distorted, or twisted out of all recognition when expedient. Leftism’s spinmeisters aren’t especially sentimental, they don’t go weak in the knees when truth contradicts their dogma. No, inconvenient truths are only brief interruptions, little bumps on the road to power.
Questions like Peter, Paul, and Mary once asked: How many times must a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see…? Well, let’s just say that writers and editors at the NY Times aren’t concerned with such quaint pedestrian notions. They have an indulgence from the High Priests of Progressivism which exempts them from the ethical requirements of their profession. The ends do justify the means. Don’t you see?
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 10:37 am
Bradley,
Corrections are all well and good. But they never run them in the same position as the lying story, do they?
The damage is already done by the time they get around to explaining - ‘waaaaay in the back of the paper - that their story was so laughably inaccurate.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Gaius,
My point is that corrections are a good place to start. Rather than slamming the NYT, you should praise the corrections as an encouraging first step. The next step is miminizing inaccuracies in the first place.
Black Jack, there are some on the right who also twist facts to fit their agenda. I have a few words to say about that on my blog. You’re welcome to comment here on my postings until I get my own comments going.
Bradley
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Gee, thanks for offering my bandwidth as your comments section, Bradley! (J/K, I don’t care if Jack answers you here).
Bradley, it may be a good start, but it simply does not excuse “misstatements” of these magnitudes, and I think you know that. While corrections are a good thing, the Times has gone too far in twisting the truth this badly. 10% is an error. 60% is a lie.
Extremists are always using a limited fact set. The difference here is that extremists on the right do not get anywhere near as much exposure as those on the left, and I think you know that, too. If the press mentions the right at all it is to denigrate them.
By Angel, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 1:24 pm
“sloppy” journalism is a masterpiece of understatement eh?..the alleged..”corrections” in fine print which no one bothers to read……..the damage is done.
The NY Slimes at it again.
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 1:51 pm
That’s the real point, isn’t it? Because they run the correction they can’t be accused of printing lies. But who reads the corrections after the headlines have done the damage?