Comments on: At What Point?

By: Gauis Arbo

Gauis Arbo — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:51:26 +0000

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?

By: Angel

Angel — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:24:42 +0000

“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

Gauis Arbo — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:15:29 +0000

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: Bradley J. Fikes

Bradley J. Fikes — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:50:33 +0000

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

Gauis Arbo — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:37:41 +0000

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: Black Jack

Black Jack — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:30:05 +0000

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: Bradley J. Fikes

Bradley J. Fikes — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:26:04 +0000

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: Bradley J. Fikes

Bradley J. Fikes — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:23:34 +0000

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.