Posted on 12/25/2008 8:28:38 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- The decline of The New York Times continues, alas and egad. On Monday, the Times was duped by some scoundrel who sent the newspaper's Web site a rude e-mail about Caroline Kennedy. It supposedly was signed by Bertrand Delanoe, the mayor of Paris. Now the Times has had to admit: "We posted a letter that carries the name of Bertrand Delanoe, the mayor of Paris, sharply criticizing Caroline Kennedy. This letter was a fake. It should not have been published. Doing so violated both our standards and our procedures in publishing signed letters from our readers."
Well, I, for one, would like to take a look at the marmoreal tablets proclaiming the Times' "standards." I do not doubt that the journalists there hold to some sort of standards, but frankly I doubt their standards have much to do with journalism or with objectivity. Just the day before being duped by a phony French mayor, the newspaper again duped itself and its readers. On its front page, it ran an interminable report on the provenance of the housing bubble and the subsequent nationwide credit freeze. For months, serious scholars have been laying the blame on government housing policy that originated in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and became really dangerous during the Clinton administration. After that, the bubble ballooned and, in 2007, burst.
Yet the Times, in the thousands of words it spilled out claiming to explain the crisis, hardly mentioned the Clinton administration. Instead, it laid total blame on the Bush administration -- poor old George, in particular. So Mayor Delanoe's letter was the second "fake" to appear in the Times this week. Yet I have read no apology. Do the editors at the Times believe their tendentious work will engender a great debate about the origins of the 2008 recession?
The American Enterprise Institute's Peter Wallison is perhaps the country's foremost authority on the housing bubble. He has been writing about it and speaking out for months. In the Times' report, neither he nor his thesis is even mentioned.
In the next issue of The American Spectator, Wallison will explain: "Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front page story on Sunday December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years -- particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system -- is what underlies the current crisis."
Wallison supports the second narrative and has no difficulty winning his case. Most devastatingly, he cites the Times' own published chart from Dec. 21. It shows American homeownership growth since 1990. In 1993, homeownership stood at 63 percent. By the end of the Clinton administration, it had grown to 68 percent. Through all the Bush years, it grew by but 1 percent. Equally devastating, Wallison recalls a 1999 news story from the Times reporting that the Clinton administration was importuning on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relax standards and extend lending to low-income homebuyers. What Wallison is too gentlemanly to add is that in this 1999 story, the Times quotes a housing expert who warns that the Fannie and Freddie policies might require a government bailout. The housing expert's name is Wallison.
So revealing the fakery of this news report is not difficult. But what is also worth mentioning is that the Times, in its ambitious partisanship, has created another political controversy that need not have been created. The origin of this bubble and credit freeze is clear. How to resolve it and prevent similar crises is the question to be addressed today. Instead, the Times wants -- so to speak -- to throw shoes at George Bush. The Times is not only unreliable but also uncouth.
Lets have the NYT publish its so called “standards” so the rest of us can measure up, eh ?
The phrase “The New York Times” must never be used in the presence of the words “standards” or “integrity.”
I take it you’re quoting from the NYT Stylebook ?
I’m just making an observation.
Times was duped by some scoundrel should read
scoundrel duped by the Times
So a newspaper with no interest in facts finds its circulation declining? Why, it must be the fault of advertisers!
Hummmm, must be new standards, as I was aware that the NY Slime published all fake, all the time.
Then again, it probably is new, because it would be easy to vet their readers, I can count them with my shoes on.
Changing my tagline...
But when the RATS can't get away with not being blamed, they cry, "At least we are trying to do something about it!" (whatever the crisis du jour is . . . ).
Hard to believe the NYT would publish something detrimental to Caroline, unless it was a setup. I mean, come on, they didn't check to see if the mayor of Paris really wrote it? SNORT! Now that's integrity for ya!
</sarc>
Nice chart!
Can I extrapolate the present trend to reach 0.00 by the end of calendar year 2009?
LOL!
**Lets have the NYT publish its so called “standards” **
That would be the SMALLEST EDITION EVER Published!
The New York Times is utterly lacking in both standards and integrity. *\;-)
**The phrase “The New York Times” must never be used in the presence of the words “standards” or “integrity.”
The New York Times is utterly lacking in both standards and integrity. *\;-)**
SmartA** ... OK I guess we can let THAT ONE Slide
/sarc
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.