<< THE COOK REPORT ~ MAIN ~ KEEP UP THE GOOD WROK >>
EDITOR ASKED TO EXPLAIN EDITING
Lisa Huang Fleischman writes to New York Times public editor Byron Calame:
Mr. Calame—I’ve never bothered to write the NY Times before, because your paper seems to make a practice of sinking to new lows every time I look, although I admit I, like many others, hardly ever look anymore. But this last was really contemptible.
Your paper profiled Cpl. Jeffrey Starr in an article about the 2000th casualty (of course). Here’s the article.
The paper quotes from a letter written by Cpl Starr to his girlfriend, found after his death by Starr’s father. The erstwhile paper of record states:
“Sifting through Corporal Starr’s laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine’s girlfriend. ‘I kind of predicted this,’ Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ‘A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.’”
Perfectly in keeping, may I say, with the defeatist, elegiac, Vietnam-like attitude of the entire piece.
I’m sorry to say that the Times reporter dishonestly deleted the rest of the letter. Thanks to the brave corporal’s family, who forwarded the remainder of the letter to Michelle Malkin, we actually know what Corporal Starr really thought, not what the Times would like to use him to stand for.
Here’s what the rest of the letter says.
He wrote: “Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”
(Emphasis mine—it’s the part that your reporter knowingly left out. Which only goes to show that everything—EVERYTHING—at the Times is in service of The Agenda.)
I know it just kills you guys to think that overwhelmingly our soldiers actually, consciously support the war, are perfectly aware of the dangers they face, and are as perfectly prepared to face them. I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren’t being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it’s just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives, while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.
Incidentally, I was a reserve army officer for twelve years. Sad, pathetic dupe that I am, I graduated Berkeley and Columbia Law School. (I understand you have a few Columbia J-School grads among your staff. Too bad. Everyone on campus knew that only the really dumb kids ended up in the J-School.)
Mr. Calame has a question or two to answer.
GRRRRRRRR
Unfortunately I just got back from lunch, and being a hardworking moneygrubbing conservative bastard I can’t slip out again to go across town to burn down the Times building. Bastards. Ann Coulter was right about West 43rd Street.Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2005 10 28 at 02:07 PM • permalinkThe Times is Synanon, and Modo’s not the only snake in our mailbox.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2005 10 28 at 02:19 PM • permalinkMaybe everyone should flood The Times with letters like this. I’m sure one won’t get their attention but a few thousand might. Then they’d have a clue why circulation is plummeting and why there were more than 500 newsroom layoffs.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2005 10 28 at 02:22 PM • permalinkGary from Jersey just made my point.
This is an excellent letter.
Never underestimate the power of blogs, Mojo, look how Forbes was running scared from a few very small bloggers…
Posted by Caltechgirl on 2005 10 28 at 02:47 PM • permalinkHey, Monroe,
Got a link to that Coulter piece? Loudmouthed skinny blondes make my day.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2005 10 28 at 02:53 PM • permalinkWho calls the NYT is the paper of record? It never was. We can only believe that this fiction has been perpetuated by those who are willing to forgive any journalistic outrage as long as there is a good book review section.
Please note the grim history of false reporting by the NY Times over the last fifty years. The Times not long ago issued a public apology for its distorted reporting of the holocaust; and can we forget its pimping for Stalin by Walter Duranty. Space is too short to document the reporting crimes of the Times, but our memories are not so short as to forget the ‘front page’ misquotes of Kissinger, which were not even of Jayson Blair origin. (Why bother to list the numerous the minor NYT scandals such as the failure to report on the trial of Muslims in the first WTC bombing,the Air American scandal, the deliberate lies published by Krugman,et. al., and on and on.) The anti-American (not only anti-war) viciousness of this cabal has reached a crescendo as America’s successes in Iraq have become more visable. This latest egregious insult against our hero and heroes must not be permitted to stand. Let us decide WHAT WE MUST DO, AND DO IT!The hero of the day is definitely Cpl. Starr. That’s quite a letter he wrote, he was obviously a very remarkable person. The Times are scum for editing that letter to meet their own objectives. The NYT gets thrown away every day, but the bolded text of Cpl. Starr above should be chiseled into marble.
Posted by Matt in Denver on 2005 10 28 at 04:06 PM • permalinkAbsolutely great letter.
The NYTimes has been a mouthpiece for the most destructive left-wing forces in America for a very long time. Truly, they are a fifth-column, dedicated to the destruction of America. Their Stalinist-like editing of Cpl. Starr’s letter is just one more stain on their shameful rag.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 10 28 at 04:43 PM • permalinkBruceW - I wasn’t able to find it published in any of the letters sections on NYT. I got a hit from the Not Exactly Rocket Science blog, but the source points back to Tim.
Gary,
Sorry, my man—I looked around, but as memory serves it was a quote the unreadable New York Observer from the irrepressible Ms. C., opining as follows: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building.’‘
Of course, the ass-assins on the left were Shocked! Shocked! at such language.Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2005 10 28 at 05:18 PM • permalink“... your paper seems to make a practice of sinking to new lows ...”
They’ve reached the same level as Goebbels, Stalin, Castro or Kim Jong Il here - at this low stratum there is no difference between left and right - both use propaganda of the most despicable variety for the same reason. Can they go lower?A great bit of “little person” reporting. I must burn the MSM’s asses that they are no longer the be all and end all of information.
That man who died for a great cause is worth more than the collective hive mind at the New york times.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 28 at 06:56 PM • permalinkBut there’s no question to answer. They are guilty of selectively editing and twisting the words of a dead hero.
What can one sensibly ask these people about their conduct? Arguably the New York Times is at the apex of left-wing elite media in the world. Sometimes it’s not a bad read but by the time you sink down to minor franchises at The Age, it’s not even interesting in its unpleasantness.
These are people who use their large wasteful editorial resources as a cloak to hide their blatant bias and agenda pushing.
As consumers though, we’re getting wise. We’re turning to blogs and FoxNews and other sources where you can get the other side of the story or perhaps even just the story without contemptible propagandist editing of NYT school.
Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2005 10 28 at 07:22 PM • permalinkMs. Fleischman has found a new customer for her book (me). I read about Cpl. Starr and the NYT debacle elsewhere on the net, so it’s good to see the truth is spreading.
The bozos at the New York Taqqiyah still don’t get it. They spread as much disinformation as they can, but at this point, it’s largely preaching to the choir. They haven’t quite grasped the ugly fact that they don’t have the “little people” in a headlock anymore, thanks to Internet technology.
From Mr. Calame: “Um… ummmm… Halliburton! Rove! Libby! Jews! JOOOOOOS!”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 28 at 07:53 PM • permalinkGreg Sheridan has a good article about the depth of support in the US military for (ahem) non-Democrat stuff.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2005 10 28 at 08:46 PM • permalinkAh, Nic White coming to the rescue of the embattled NYT. No surprise there.
And I didn’t know that Lisa Fleishman has a readership comparable to the NYT or claims to be the Letter Writer of Record, so how her putdown of the pantywaist Times writers is “just as bad if not worse than anything the NYT has done” is quite beyond me. Guess you just wanted to illustrate that hyperbole concept, eh Nic?
But for the blogosphere this heartwrenching letter and Lisa’s superb expose would have been destined for the NYT trashcans.
The same goes for the BBC that has the same arrogance and distain for its readers yhose who do not tow the line of the Ministry if truth, that is).
If there is to be no media accountability, albeit whenever attemted it is rejected by the same lame arguments of “throttling the freedom of the press”, then it is up to blogsites such as this and BBC-bias, etc to do the important work.
That is without doubt the most important aspect of blogging in my book and the only line of defence against the monopoly of truth.Excellent work, Lisa. And Mr Calame - the bugs under your rock are missing you.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 10 28 at 09:22 PM • permalinkBLOODY HELL!
That sort of thing is just plain criminal, no two ways about it. The sad thing is, this sort of corruption happens all the time. ABC watchers will know what I’m talking about. I see they’re paying yet ANOTHER visit to the folks at Guantanamo Bay on Four Corners this week, while SBS is re-visiting Abu Ghraib.
MAN-O-MAN!!!Nic White, you are a pathetic clown.
Lisa Huang Fleischman made a statement of opinion as to the motives of the NYT. Her opinion may or may not be correct, but it is well supported by the documented actions of said NYT.
The NYT, meanwhile, grossly misrepresented a soldier’s written words so as to reverse their meaning. Documented fact. And this misrepresentation supports the NYTs known and oft-stated opinions, which in turn supports Ms. Fleischman’s opinion of the NYT.
Ms. Fleischman stated her own opinion as her own opinion.
The NYT deliberately misrepresented another person’s opinion.
The two are not even remotely similar.
Mr Calame has earlier confirmed that the editors of the NYT are not biased. He came to this conclusion because they told him they weren’t biased.
“Newspaper of record”, indeed.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 10 28 at 10:47 PM • permalinkMaybe it’s time for “Prince Arthur” aka Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr, to bring back the moose.
Posted by Mr Anderson on 2005 10 28 at 11:31 PM • permalinkre Brian at #34
I wrote to ABC thusly on September 13:
Dear Ms ClarkCc Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications
I heard Ken Fraser broadcasting on your program at about 5.50pm yesterday (12/9/05) – see below.
Could I ask why you chose to use this hysterical anti-US propagandist with negligible qualifications (“PhD Candidate”) on a prime-time slot immediately after the anniversary of the 11/9/01 terrorist strike?
Could I also ask whether you are organizing any sort of speaker with US-government sympathies to provide a balancing commentary? If so, who and when?
Given our government’s unwillingness to provide fora for extremist and inflammatory agitators, did you check before broadcasting Fraser’s views whether he has any official position with Taliban, Al Quaeda or similar groups?
Assuming you respond satisfactorily, I will forebear complaining to the appropriate ABC tribunal.
I got the following reply yesterday:
Thank you for your email of 12 September regarding the Perspective piece presented by Ken Fraser entitled ‘The Aftermath’. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding.The ABC’s Code of Practice details the standards that apply to programs such as Perspective. As outlined in section 5 of the Code, a copy of which may be found at http://abc.net.au/corp/codeprac.htm, the ABC is committed to providing factual programs of great diversity that reflect a wide range of interests, beliefs and perspectives. In order to provide such a range of views, the ABC broadcasts programs that explore, or are presented from, particular points of view. There is no requirement to provide equal time to the “opposing” perspective within the same or a subsequent program. For example, the ABC may broadcast programs that contain controversial opinion and comment such as Perspective.
Mr Fraser is completing a doctoral thesis in International Relations and is focusing on geostrategic threats to the international system. I am advised that this is sufficient qualification to present this editorial piece on Radio National. While the ABC recognises that many of Mr Fraser’s comments were highly controversial, he was expressing his own opinion. Mr Fraser’s views and opinions do not represent those of the ABC.
Please be assured that your comments have been brought to the attention of the management at Radio National, so that they are made aware of your feedback regarding this edition of Perspective.
Thank you again for writing to the ABC.
Yours sincerely,
Denise Musto
Audience & Consumer AffairsDear, dear little Nic White has crawled out from his echo chamber to castigate his betters, I see. Nic, your attitude seems to be that when bias, demonstrable misrepresentation of fact,and deliberate passing of falsehood as truth accords with your ideology, that is fine.
But when this is called for what it is, this is not fine.
Here is a thought for you, Nic. What if the attitudes expressed in the paragraph you reject are actually held in reality by soldiers, sailors and airmen? These people being volunteers who are willing to place themselves between you, and those who wish to kill you, because they believe in the fruits of the enlightenment, however they phrase that belief?
If this postulate is correct, what does that make you?
You see, I know that those sentiments are actually valid, normal, and conventional, and that those people do make a conscious choice to be the one ‘standing the watch on distant marches’ precisely to protect others from those who would harm them.
But 23 years of regular service in the military offers insights in to the human condition you can and will never know.
Perhaps that is why you reject those sentiments. Perhaps you actually know that the multitudes of people like Starr and Fleischmann are simply better people, more moral people, than you and your ilk. For they go and do, while you sit and whine.
But even if you do not know this, rest assured that we do.
MarkL
Canberrapercypup,
I received a similar whitewash answer from the same ABC source, quoting the same part of the charter.
It had the revealing addition that the ABC considers Late Night Live and In The National Interest [Sundays] as ‘opinion programming’, thus indemnifying its presenters from being neutral or fair.
So these leftwing tenured fanatics have the airwaves for 10 hours a week to select and promote their own interviews and to editorialise as much as the care to at public expense.
It gets worse—since they recently contracted Michael Duffy as ‘balance’ they can claim that ALL their interview programs aren’t left-dominated, only 80%.
The very idea of balanced or neutral interviewing in current affairs is thus not considered important in ‘our ABC’ where biased presenters are simply redefined as ‘opinion broadcasters’, so bias is fine..
And I have that in writing….And so we return to Phillip Adams joshing inanely with yet another geriatric socialist hero….
MarkL, did I defend the NYT? No, I pointed out that some of the content of that letter was just as bad if not worse. I also refuse to worship soldiers. Thank you and good afternoon.
Basically you are all making the argument that the NYT selectively edited the Cpl’s letter to prop up their Agenda, which they push by being biased to the point of being one-sided, and by exaggeration.
Suppose this is entirely true.
My point is that the letter quoted here in its 2nd last paragraph resorted to *exactly* the same kind of bias, hyperbole to build up a strawman to smear the NYT and “the left” in general in a truly dishonest fashion.
So why then is it any better than the NYT has done for the same reasons, albeit on the opposite side? Its not, thats my point.
But, as usual, you dont want to hear it because its inconvenient, so calling me silly names is your response. Clearly I expect too much.
#47
Nic White - we could spend all day debationg with you regarding the difference between a letter expressing a personal opinion and the malicious editing of material by a powerful news organiztion in order to support a political agenda.
But it would be a complete waste of time because you are a fuckwit
One major problem with the left is their penchant for considering their personal opinions to be facts. And this is where Nic White goes wrong. That “...2nd last paragraph…” is primarily opinion.
But Nic White mistakenly treats it as fact, so he can claim that it is “...bias, hyperbole to build up a strawman to smear the NYT and “the left” in general in a truly dishonest fashion.”
Yes, Nic, I know…..how can I tell that it is primarily opinion, and not fact? Because, where it isn’t written in first person from Lisa Fleischman to Byron Calame, it’s referring to LCPL Starr’s letter.
That’s opinion, Nic, based on observation. Not a strawman argument. Not facts. You still haven’t learned how to read, I see. Sad, for a journalist student. Or are you planning to apply to the NYT for a job?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 29 at 04:36 AM • permalinkIt seems not even those who gave their lives in the service of their country are entitled to their opinion at the NYT. Even more, the last words of a deceased soldier to his girlfriend are calculatedly abused. The cold-bloodedness of this ploy is gob-smacking.
Nic White, the paragraph you object to contains these assertions:
(1) most soldiers support the war
(2) they are prepared to face the dangers involved
(3) many on the left and in the NYT think that soldiers have been duped
(4) NYT reporters may secretly envy the significance of what soldiers do
(5) ” ” distort events in Iraq
(6) ” ” are ‘accumulating’ the contempt of the American people(1) & (2) seem solid to me
(3) says no more than what we often hear from those who oppose the war
(4) is speculative and derogatory but quite understandable in the light of this incident
(5) is arguable but what’s above and a mountain of other evidence give it plenty of support
(6) is also arguable but outside the NYT readership, if that, disagreement would be on rocky groundHardly a ‘smear’ even when we don’t take into account the dramatic differences, pointed out by Pixy and MarkL, between this and the filthy - you can take that as a smear - NYT.
re #43 ABC:
the Ken fraser anti-US hysteria I complained of is at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1458521.htm
The link to ABC code of practice is
http://abc.net.au/corp/codeprac.htmNic
‘MarkL, did I defend the NYT? No, I pointed out that some of the content of that letter was just as bad if not worse. I also refuse to worship soldiers. Thank you and good afternoon. ‘
COMMENT: Who asked you to ‘worship soldiers’? I merely asked you to consider as a postulate that their regard for what they were doing is a considered, mature, voluntary and rational decision to place themselves between people like you and those who would harm people like you. Even wording it civilly has generated a rather emotive response from you, which I personally interpret as reflecting on you.
‘Basically you are all making the argument that the NYT selectively edited the Cpl’s letter to prop up their Agenda, which they push by being biased to the point of being one-sided, and by exaggeration.
Suppose this is entirely true.
My point is that the letter quoted here in its 2nd last paragraph resorted to *exactly* the same kind of bias, hyperbole to build up a strawman to smear the NYT and “the left” in general in a truly dishonest fashion.’
COMMENT: No, because the cases differ. The major media company known as the NYT abused its position as a MSM media outlet to deliberately falsify what a now-dead soldier said to the point where his meaning and intent were reversed. This was not one person stating an opinion, it was a major media entity - a company - projecting a corporate agenda, and telling a lie to do so. Read the article. They deliberately lied to their readership about what CPL Starr said. As The Real Jeffs and Inurbanus note, quite correctly, Fleischman was expressing an individual opinion about their conduct, and about the motives of their staff in doing so, becuase, let’s face it, twisting the last words of a dead man is a very low act. That is radically different because it is an individual opinion vs a corporate lie. There is a major difference between a newspaper deliberately lying to X-hundred-thousand, and an individual expressing an opinion about that lie. You seem to miss this.
‘So why then is it any better than the NYT has done for the same reasons, albeit on the opposite side? Its not, thats my point.’
COMMENT: It is a different case, and that is the point you have missed. Fleischman is expressing an opinion, the NYT is publicising a deliberate lie. That said, I am mildly surprised by your seeming support for media corporations who lie to their readers.
‘But, as usual, you dont want to hear it because its inconvenient, so calling me silly names is your response. Clearly I expect too much. ‘
COMMENT: That is probably the reason why I am talking the time to reply civilly - if sarcastically - to you, then. BTW, what silly names have I called you? The tone of my post is that I consider you to be blinkered by a worldview so distorted by neo-religious dogma that you are not able to rationally and impartially process factual data. This may (or may not) mark you as a fool: your actions will show that, and I have no interest in finding out what your actions are. Neither those words not my indifference to you is intended to be demeaning or insulting. The way you see the world intrigues me for various reasons, that is all.
MarkL
CanberraThe Age’s Law Reporter Fergus Shiel again shows the difficulty of satirising the Left - when he satirises himself and The Age heirarchy without meaning to.
Take today’s piece (Insight, p3) http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/the-price-of-friendship/2005/10/28/1130400361078.html
about Left luvvie Moira Rayner, one-time Victorian Equal Opportunity Commissioner who was, until her abrupt recent resignation, acting commissioner of WA’s Corruption & Crime Commission. She is now charged with corruption and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Shiel writes: “A corruption conviction would probably kill Rayner’s prospects of appointment to another government position anywhere in Australia…”
Probably??!!
Reading the piece, one finds all the code-words applicable to Left Luvvie darlings of The Age, even those facing corruption charges.
Shiel writes that Rayner “has long held the moral high ground”...and she was a “human rights lawyer, thinker and writer.”
Thinker??!! Like, no-one else thinks?
Shiel continues: “Acquaintances {who they? why not name them?} say the duo {the other one being Laurie Marquet charged with 55 counts of corruption, theft and drug possession}, were drawn to each other by their intelligence, legal expertise and support for gay rights”.
Like, the rest of us aren’t intelligent? Thanks, Fergus.
Shiel: “Her explanation for tipping off Marquet has drawn sympathy from Labor women and human rights activists...”
Like, why is Andrew Bolt, say, or Tim Blair, never referred to as ‘human rights activitists’?? Because they perhaps oppose human rights?
Shiel goes on to quote Rayner character references from Perth Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey
: “Rayner is a woman with an acute social conscience who has always sought to live a moral life”
and WA Labor politician John Hyde: “People are incredulous that probably one of the great intellectual minds in Australia - one of Australia’s human rights heroes - with an intricate understanding of fair play and justice could allow human frailty to cloud her own judgement.”
and (wait for it) Carmen Lawrence: ” her long-standing commitment to decent community standards.”
If this is how The Age profiles a Leftie on corruption charges, imagine how they write about Lefties who aren’t charged with anything.Nicely said, MarkL!
Although Pixy’s post (#48) is an excellent demonstration…..
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 29 at 06:51 AM • permalinkI love the left, it seems that they have a god given right to bend / break laws to suit themselves and then the handwringing begins to explain the need to circumvent the laws of the land.
Who gives a flying fuck about poor old Moira, I certainly don’t, her breaking of the law eliminates the need for sympathy, she knew exactly what she was doing.
And the pure gold is just at the end of the post, the feebly minded Carmen Lawrence passing judgement on what stands for community values…...........how would she know based on her history.
Carmen Lawrence, a living treasure of the ALP, that will do me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright Ill conceed the opinion vs fact point. Like I said, I dont in any way condone the NYT’s obvious lie by selectively quoting.
However I still think sections of the response, and some comments here, are no better than the conduct of some newspapers (opinion or news) at others times of the war coverage/commentary. Obviously I also think some of the response is wrong, and that it tries to build a strawman of the NYT’s motivation and such. Ill norrow down what I think is objectionable in light of Inurbanus’ comment:
“I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren’t being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it’s just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives…
Its wild speculation which I dont think is even slightly justified and highly reprehensible, but feel free to disagree.
...while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.
Clearly in this case there has been twisting of the news, but this statement blows it out of proportion to imply it is done more often than not. The argument that they are running a campaign to turn American citizens against the war is arguable.
Im just saying, really, dont get so outraged over another example of NYT bias if youre going to praise similar acts of bias from your own side, point about opinion vs fact notwithstanding.
MarkL: Civility is appreciated, too bad it isnt an automatic thing for many (not just here, of course). Your first post appeared to give off one of those “soldiers are better than you just because” feelings, which I destest.
And for the record, I am in support of the war, if that matters.
Its wild speculation which I dont think is even slightly justified and highly reprehensible, but feel free to disagree.
So what would be your speculation about why NYT people such as Calame do what they do?
I could come up with an even more intriguing idea, in fact. Maybe NYT staffers don’t do it to mask their own perceived shortcomings, but their readers’? In other words, maybe they publish lies and deceptions because that’s what their (remaining) audience wants? There’s certainly less support for that assertion than for Fleischman’s, but wouldn’t it be fun if the “NYT worldview” is merely a calculated business decision to fleece clueless lefties?
Incidentally, let’s note that you brush off Fleishman’s statements as “not even slightly justified” and “reprehensible” without actually stating why. Perhaps you’ll want to respond to Inurbanus’ breakdown of the paragraph you find so objectionable? Right now, all I get from you is “It’s not justified because I don’t think it is”. That’s certainly MSM caliber thinking, but (or rather, therefore) not terribly convincing.
Im just saying, really, dont get so outraged over another example of NYT bias if youre going to praise similar acts of bias from your own side, point about opinion vs fact notwithstanding.
Sigh. As usual with equivocating “everybody does it, nothing to see here, move right along” lefties, you fail to understand that it’s not about bias per se, it’s about passing off your bias as disinterested reporting. And in this case also outright misrepresentation of the words of a man who isn’t around to defend himself against it. If you can’t see how this isn’t remotely the same as a sternly worded letter to the editor that doesn’t pretend to be in any way objective, you’re really not fit to be a journalist, Nic. At least not one to be taken seriously.
#62 - PW - some MSM journalists are still taken seriously then? I thought we’d all but gone from the point of no return!
Although Nic seems to be of the belief that this minor slip-up by the NYTs is a mere aberration in the MSM, rather than a dirty little habit.
[P.S. - Has someone been diddling with the water supplies in Blair-land, or what? Within a day we have had the two James’ taking a bizarre and rabid “stand” over a matter that required the firing of approximately half a synapse in “critical thinking”; now here is Nic carrying on like a twerp by attempting to critique a necessary and compelling letter to the editor of a newspaper as if such an act by an individual citizen is now to be held to a standard of objectivity and peer review way beyond anything that any profession, let alone journalists, have to abide. What the hell is going?!]
Nic #60
The argument that they are running a campaign to turn American citizens against the war is arguable.PW #62 has got a point. The NYT is running a campaign to turn opinion against the war. Its editorials and other less reputable practices are plain enough. In this it reflects the views of most of its readers and of its own left-leaning journalists. Nothing surprising, surely.
But there is a truth in Ms Fleischman’s thought about reporters ‘envying’ soldiers if you think about it. I believe that Cpl Starr was fighting to protect others’ freedom. Consider what Calame did. Which of them would you envy?
Tim,
Thankyou for publicizing Ms Fleiscman’s excellent letter to Mr Calame. The world needs to know how far the Times has stooped.
For those who fear there are no consquenses for such shoddy journalism, a brief wait may prove them wrong. In less than a week the Audit Bureau of Circulation will release the 6 month publisher’s (circulation) statement for the Times and most US dailies. The recent announcement by the NY Times Company of 500 layoffs may have been a harbinger to an unpleasant circulation report.
Check Editor and Publiser’s website. They should be the first to carry it.
Posted by Corky Boyd on 2005 10 29 at 10:55 AM • permalink[P.S. - Has someone been diddling with the water supplies in Blair-land, or what?
Perhaps everyone’s just trying to prove we’re not the happy-nappy circle jerk that some of our pet trolls like to think we are. :) Besides, with the actual trolling being so woefully bad right now (I’m looking at you, T-loser), we might as well engage in a friendly little internecine warfare to keep our skills sharp. :P
“So what would be your speculation about why NYT people such as Calame do what they do?”
Im not in the business of speculating on such matters. I dont know them.
“Incidentally, let’s note that you brush off Fleishman’s statements as “not even slightly justified” and “reprehensible” without actually stating why. Perhaps you’ll want to respond to Inurbanus’ breakdown of the paragraph you find so objectionable? Right now, all I get from you is “It’s not justified because I don’t think it is”. That’s certainly MSM caliber thinking, but (or rather, therefore) not terribly convincing.”
Im clarifying what my gripe with the letter is, and I did in fact respond to Inurbanus, by essentially saying I do not agree with 4-6. So a number of it’s editors are left-wing, had a read of The Australian editorials recently?
I dont have a whole lot of time in my day to navel-gaze on blogs, so Im not going to write you essays. He didnt bother to justify his allegations against NYT staff either - they are unjustified because there is nothing to justify them, and they are reprehensible because they make an assumption about a group of people based on no evidence.
“As usual with equivocating “everybody does it, nothing to see here, move right along” lefties…”
Unsurprisingly, a misrepresentation. Thats not my point at all. You yell and scream about how biased the “MSM” op-eds are on any given day of the week, but when someone from your own side does exactly the same thing in a much less civil manner, its praised. Whether this letter is in response to a misleading piece of spin or an op-ep is less relevant than you make out. I dont belong to either of the fictional the “left” or “right” monoliths, so Ill praise and condemn whomever I please equally.
Inurbanus, I envy neither - why would I?
Nic White, in #67:
Im not in the business of speculating on such matters. I dont know them.
Well, this is one point of consistency for you in this thread. Lisa Fleischman expressed an opinion, which includes speculation, and you didn’t like that. So I guess no one can speculate, eh?
You yell and scream about how biased the “MSM” op-eds are on any given day of the week, but when someone from your own side does exactly the same thing in a much less civil manner, its praised.
Sigh. Here’s what PW said in post #62, last paragraph:
”... you fail to understand that it’s not about bias per se, it’s about passing off your bias as disinterested reporting.”
Emphasis is by PW.
Lisa Fleischman chastized the NYT editors for doing exactly that—passing their bias off as “disinterested reporting”, and they did so to a man who can’t respond because he is dead; his family had to, in the midst of their grief and mourning. The why is her opinion; the what and how is established fact.
The fact is that many people view the MSM as being biased, and that the MSM attempts to pass that bias off as disinterested reporting. The funny thing is, the MSM has the freedom to be as biased as they want to. And we have the freedom to call the MSM on their bulls**t.
And that’s exactly what’s happening here, Nic. The NYT is getting called on their little game by a citizen, who publically criticizes them on their outrageous behavior.
The MSM is not free from criticism or market pressures, Nic. Subject to liable and slander laws, they can be criticized as much as we like. The real question that you should be asking is, “Is that criticism justified?”
And in this case, most folks here do agree that this criticism is justified. Ultimately, I think that’s your question. If you don’t agree with that justification, well, I’d say that this thread is over for you.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 29 at 01:09 PM • permalinkNic, if you had said that in post #27, think of the enormous amount of capitals, bolds, italics, and assorted punctuation marks that we would have saved! ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 29 at 02:12 PM • permalinkNic, re Post 60.
I try very hard not to take ‘sides’ in left-right discourse, and I do not regard myself as being part of a ‘side’. I am a former socialist (oh, so long ago…) who got smacked around the head by reality in the worst way.
When I see BS reporting, irrespective of who is doing it, it ticks me off. I have problems with the most egregious offenders (Adams, Ramsay, M. Devine) irrespective of which ‘side’ they are on. My job has long involved dispassionate assessment of facts.
I suspect that in dealing with the world based on observed fact,most people would label me as conservative. I prefer rationalist, myself, but labels are too simple anyway. What worries me about the MSM (and about many, but not all, elements within the modern left) is how far they have drifted from being able to dispassionately assess facts.
MarkL
CanberraI am the mother of a soldier serving for exactly the same reasons that Cpl. Starr chose to serve. I can not bear to think of the NYT’s getting away with this treasonous act. I hope and pray that at this time blogs are as powerful as I suspect they are. I believe that we can “grow” this information, by sharing it EVERYWHERE until it takes over space outside of the blogosphere and within eye and ear-shot of all of America. This is not information that is steeped in political or legal complexity. This is CLEAR and CLEARLY treasonous. There are countless Americans who would be OUTRAGED by this deliberate deception. As hard as it is for the savvy blogger to believe, many citizens in our country still believe that the press is a trustworthy source of reliable information.
Posted by Jess1Dering on 2005 10 30 at 03:34 AM • permalinkNic, treason is defined here. Jess1Dering is justified in using the term, and it doesn’t strain any sense of credibility to do so; bringing the NYT editors to trial is a different matter. Remember the word “opinion” being bandied about earlier?
OTOH, you didn’t agree with Lisa Fleischman’s excellent criticism. Again, you are showing a certain consistency on this thread. Not that I would brag about it, if I were you, since you are for the war.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 30 at 05:59 AM • permalinkEven if you accept the argument that the NYT is somehow an organised effort to turn America against the war, that does not constitute “consciously and purposely acting to aid [America’s] enemies.” Just because someone is not fond of using war to depose dictators, does not mean they want the terrorists to win and be able to commit more terrorist attacks on American soil. Its not commiting treason to have a different opinion to the government, or to push that opinion.
I dont agree with their position, and I dont think they should be dressing up bias as objective reporting, or having an unbalanced op-ed portfolio; but I also do not think the hyperbole spouted everywhere about “the left” in all its forms is accurate, neither do I like speculation based on zero evidence - as was in the letter.
Nic, I used a standard dictionary to define treason, not a law book, nor the Constitution. Again, we are discussing opinion here. Hyperbole is different from opinion, although an opinion can contain hyperbole. Speculation contained in opinions is perfectly acceptable, within the limits of libel and slander laws.
The criticism by Lisa Fleischman contains hyperbole if and only if you disagree with her opinions. This holds for Jess1Dering as well. “Speculation” is acceptable, when expressed as opinions, not as charges.
That you “...dont agree with their {NYT} position…” but dismiss dissenting opinions as hyperbole is not consistent logically. But it is your position, although you are hard pressed to defend it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 30 at 07:49 AM • permalinkThe difference between most (not all) leftie blogs and RWDB blogs is that opinions and facts are often treated as equals on the lefties.
The thread is a discussion of the outrageous behavior of the NYT—an established fact. No one here has started an on line petition to bring the editors of the NYT to trial for treason—their motives for this are largely opinion. As MarkL pointed out, there are other reasons for their actions. I can point out a third: The editors of the NYT are genuine idiots who can’t find their wallets with both hands and a compass.
Now, just how petitions are out there demanding the trial of John Howard and George Bush for war crimes…..?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 30 at 07:55 AM • permalinkNic, you may think it a small matter that the NYT’s willfully misrepresented the heart and soul of a young soldier who GAVE HIS LIFE in service to his country. You may think those misleading words were an insignificant BETRAYAL OF the TRUST placed in the NYT’s by anyone who read and believed that article. You may think that newspapers should be used as propaganda tools , and allowed to DISTORT FACT in their efforts to , in your words ,”...push that opinion”. God help you, Nic. In addition to treason, you may want to look up the meaning of each of the following words; HONOR and INTEGRITY and TRUTH.
Posted by Jess1Dering on 2005 10 30 at 08:05 AM • permalinkBTW, I certainly don’t propose any legal action against anyone. I do feel a loyalty to “Truth”. I also feel a tremendously strong desire to have anyone who may have read the misleading quote given the opportunity to hear THE WHOLE TRUTH. Honestly, I’m thinking “WAY-DOWN with the NYT’s- long live the memory of the TRUTH about Cpl. Jeffrey Starr.
Posted by Jess1Dering on 2005 10 30 at 08:20 AM • permalinkNic White
Again with the outrage over ‘hyperbole’, Is there no end to your rewording the same point over and over again. Is there any possibility of you seeing the irony contained in you own words.
“neither do I like speculation based on zero evidence - as was in the letter. “
So you know all that Lisa has seen and read? If not ...........
Jess, must it be one or the other? The NYT did do something wrong, its an outrageous breach of journalistic ethics, but it was nowhere near “treasonous”, as you insist. Get some perspective.
Jeff, Im not dismissing opinions as hyperbole because they are dissent, I call it how I see it. Look at the extract in question:
“I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren’t being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it’s just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives, while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.”
All the assertions in this section are completely unfounded, and use one, or at least only a limited number of, examples to imply that the NYT is conducting an organised campaign to turn America agaist the war and that NYT staff have serious contempt for soldiers and envy them. This is an exaggeration of what this example says about the NYT. Yes, this is an opinion, obviously, but Im going to call bullshit on it.
Nic, I see you have not consulted a dictionary re: the definition of the word treason which can mean, a betrayal of trust. Thank you for acknowledging that this “edit” involved an outrageous breach of journalistic ethics: although that term is becoming more of an oxy-moron by the minute.
Posted by Jess1Dering on 2005 10 30 at 11:00 PM • permalinkRe: #43…
Great stuff Percy!
Great to hear there are others out there who hold the public broadcaster to account…THANK YOU!
Sorry however that all your effort got you was a laughable response…The ABC is committed to providing factual programs of great diversity that reflect a wide range of beliefs and perspectives.
YEAH RIGHT!
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Yow!