NY Times Admits it Lied to Help Bush

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
I DanSed you. The Wall Street Journal is the center-right's paper of record.

The WSJ has a similar structure to the NYT. Liberal leaning reporters with a right leaning op/ed staff, though in the case of the WSJ, it's reactionary, rather than conservative.

[East Street Trader]

You are wise, as always, Dan, to be so demanding.

And, your demands having been so splendidly met, you will have no trouble showing me examples of news stories appearing in your national press in which the tittle tattle obtained by the reporter has been checked back to the primary source.

Or, not wishing to be too demanding, one such in all your time reading your most scrupulous organs will suffice.

I can already show you a good few examples of what you actually get - along with everyone else - because they appear at the head of this thread. Try reconciling the certainties screeched in the headlines with the acknowledgment of tittle tattle buried in the attributions. Demand of yourself that you work out whether the eye catching or the accurate is of more interest to the editor concerned.

And what you will find, if you search out or demand sight of, all the uncited cases which the newspaper sanctimoniously congratulates itself upon, is what everyone else has already found. They are no different.

There do seem to be a couple of actual differences between your newspapers and ours - yours found a more effective way to avoid libel laws. So they publish rubbish about individuals even more readily. And secondly, if those from your side of the pond are equally as self satisfied as some of those appearing in this thread they are also a good deal more smug.

[DanS]

Reactionary? The WSJ?

The WSJ successfully straddles the constituencies of the Republican party. Conservatives + Main Street Republicans who are called conservatives but who are really centrist-oriented + Rockefeller Republicans who are centrists.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Washington Post is good, but doesn't have enough breadth to be a paper of record. It's mostly Washington-centric.

That's funny. I always found the Post to be far less Washington-centric than the Times is New York centric...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lied.

As in, "reported what we were told, but we didn't guess at the time that some of the people who told us this stuff were spinning it in their favor."

There's a bit of a difference between "lying" and "reporting what you believe to be true at the time, but later admitting that you've since found out some of those people were lying"

Does this mean Saddam was a nice guy after all?

[DanS]

Washington is no New York City, however. The Washington Post is a lot of political and government inside baseball. Good stuff, but not a paper of record.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
As in, "reported what we were told, but we didn't guess at the time that some of the people who told us this stuff were spinning it in their favor."

As in, we know these guys have serious biases, but we're not gonna bother to check it out. we'll just let our paper be their mouthpiece.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Washington Post is a lot of political and government inside baseball.

I guess I find this kind of news to be a lot more interesting and useful than an exhaustive review of the latest Broadway plays...

Washington is no New York City, however.

Consider yourself lucky.

[DanS]

And, your demands having been so splendidly met, you will have no trouble showing me examples of news stories appearing in your national press in which the tittle tattle obtained by the reporter has been checked back to the primary source.

You don't look very hard, apparently. Bob Woodward from the Washington Post always seems to source his articles to the nines. That doesn't mean everything he says is correct, of course.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Conservatives defending the NY Times.

Not really a conservative, but I've always liked the NY Times. Every paper has a bias, but at least the NY Times likes to cover things not in the US (and give them substantial play). That endears me to them.

[Boris Godunov]

The NYT has outstanding international reporting and does many things far better than any other U.S. paper. Since it's the big dog, I guess people will try to dump on it as much as possible, but if other U.S. papers were under such scrutiny (and such high-profile targets of certain political persuasions), I doubt fair any better, and probably far worse.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
The Washington Post is good, but doesn't have enough breadth to be a paper of record. It's mostly Washington-centric.

Most of the stuff that happens in the world is

[DanS]

I think that "Washington is the center of the world" stuff is massively overblown.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DanS
And I'm saying that's just not so. Not on this subject.

Well, I wasn't talking about the Chalabi case. Just the manner of performing 180° turns.

[DanS]

The NYT has outstanding international reporting and does many things far better than any other U.S. paper.

Their "outstanding" international reporting blew this one big-time. They recognize this.