MDM4AU 336 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I guess a Pulitzer doesn't give a publication credibility after all... It seems the NYT printed an article knowing some of the "facts" were actually fiction. This information was discovered days before the piece went to print but the Times sent it on anyway. Then, I'm sure out of pure guilt, they printed a retraction...a FULL WEEK after the story ran. I do feel sorry for the woman at the center of this. She appears to be going through severe PTSD from twice being raped, once in Mississippi and once in Guam. These women in the article definitely deserve better than the harassment they are reported to have received and their stories need to be out there for everyone to hear. But the article was "centered around the plight of several female Veterans of the war in Iraq." And the woman in question never served in Iraq. Why did they send it on to print? Can you not cut that part out in three days? Is it better in their minds to meet a deadline with the "right number" of words rather than getting the facts straight? Why wait an entire week to retract it? That's ten days after they found out the truth. And some wonder why there are so many people so skeptical of the NYT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 SSDD for the NYT lately. Jason Blair, The Katrina Hoax: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013506.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 SSDD for the NYT lately. Jason Blair, The Katrina Hoax: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013506.php Yeah, but...but...they are a Pulitzer Prize Winning Publication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think the NYT has been coasting on its rep for years. While it always has leaned left, it used to be pretty fair. Now there are bunch of agenda driven nitwits at the helm. I still get the Sunday NYT for the Book Reviews and the Crossword Puzzle. But, at the same time, I'm amazed at some of the things that manage to creep into print. For example, there was an article a few months ago on DNA, and the reporter put in a line that literally said "further undermines the case for God." What? How does one have anything to do with the other? I wrote them, making that exact point, but never got a reply. Need another example? After the Super Bowl this year, they had the usual rundown of the ads during the telecast. And the writer, out of the blue, theorized that all the slapstick ads were probably due to the angst over the violence in Iraq. Again...WHAT THE HELL? How on earth did he make that leap? Where are the copy editors whose job is to catch this kind of nonsense? Heck, all you have to do is follow the story of Jayson Blair and realize how slipshod the standards have become. So stories such as this don't surprise anybody anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.