Posted on 04/14/2006 3:32:21 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
Another Day, Another Embarrassing Intelligence-Related Correction Posted by: Clay Waters 4/14/2006 11:59:09 AM
After correcting itself on the Lewis Libby leak yesterday, the Times on Friday corrects another Bush-related intelligence story by reporter Eric Lichtblau that brought much criticism from conservative bloggers like PowerLine.
This is what Lichtblau falsely claimed March 29: “In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”
Today the Times admits: “An article on March 29 about congressional hearings on the Bush administration's program of domestic eavesdropping referred imprecisely to testimony about the secretive court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which requires warrants for eavesdropping under most circumstances. While two former judges said they believed that Mr. Bush was bound by federal laws governing intelligence gathering, they did not explicitly express skepticism about whether he has the constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.”
As Times Watch pointed out at the time, “Lichtblau doesn’t quote any of the judges actually voicing that skepticism about Bush’s actions -- skepticism Lichtblau certainly feels, judging by his slanted reporting in the past.”
BTTT
The Times is suffering from intelligence failure. They should read the bloggers first before printing anything except possibly the weather.
In addition to the response letter claiming they strive to get the correct information printed, blah blah blah they added a paragraph stating how offended they were that a reader would think the Times would deliberately print false information about republicans.
What a joke!
HAR!
How utterly arrogant. It really is all about them, isn't it?
making the Post look rather credible, no?
I do not know where the NYT reports corrections but I do know where the effect of cumulative errors and bias are accounted.
NEW YORK, April 13 (Reuters) - New York Times Co. (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Thursday said first-quarter profit fell 69 percent from a year earlier when it took a large gain, as higher newsprint costs and weak results from the Boston Globe outweighed strong Internet revenue.
The NYT makes it up as it goes along. Facts be damned!
Its also like the quote about Lawyers.
"What are two lawyers in a court of law? They are like two pairs of shears that cut at everything but the truth and not each other."
The same could be said for newspapers and journalists.
"Where does the Times print corrections and retractions? Page A39?"
All corrections should be printed on Page 2. Force papers to think before they write something.
Seeing how the sales are going for The NY Times maybe they should post their retractions in the obituaries.
How about the "hit and run media" ?
Or "hit and run retractions later media" ?
Thanks for the ping! :-)
"No biggie for the NYT, they still get 99% of their lies out there unchallenged."
But consider, 15 years ago they got 100% of their lies out unchallenged. The 1% that our side is exposing is proving to be the undoing of the radical left as the MSM print pukes are going down the porcelain convenience. And the talking lunatics on the alphabet channels are in hot pursuit of the print media in search of the nice clean porcelain spa.
The Ole Grey Ho has Alzheimers.
Good idea.
A poster by the screen name of Don Morgan used to put a comment in behind the To name in his post.
They have removed that capability.
It provided a way you could get visibility on the browse screen without anyone actually being required to click on the article.
I would like to see that capability returned.
Easy Does It:)
ping
No. It was on the front page, but you needed to wear a pair of special glasses invented by Bejamin Franklin to see it.
Joe Wilson is allowed to write letters to the editor if he wants to.
If the NYT was smart, here's what they'd do:
Announce that every day, they will run a completely fabricated news story, and offer $100 cash to the first reader who identifies which news story was fake in that day's issue.
Then the next day, instead of running an embarrassing correction on page A38, they could put RIGHT ON PAGE 1: "John Johnson was the WINNER of $100 for spotting yesterday's FAKE NEWS STORY. Spot today's fake news story and WIN $100!!!!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.