The explosives that went missing in Iraq that the New York Times so gleefully reported on? Happened before we got there.
It’s okay. Just an honest mistake. It’d just be nice if the NYT’s honest mistakes would happen to President Bush’s benefit, instead of his detriment. Of course, it could all be a lie by the Bush mouthpiece we all know and love called NBC Nightly News, but I doubt it.
Doesn’t matter who wins this election. I already know who the losers are.
I think the timing of the report is suspicious. Sounds like someone sat on the story for a while and tried to maximize its use for political gain.
But before anyone berates the NYTimes, the newspaper with the most Pulitzer Prize winning stories by far (and don’t give me the mistake made in the 1930′s, many things come to light through history and it doesn’t cast doubt on the hundreds of other stories they wrote that won awards), it is the job of newspapers to critically assess each presidential administration. I think what happens to Bush supporters is that they, like the president, don’t like criticism, and conveniently forget that Clinton took a major, major daily drubbing in the NYTimes for eight years. Every president gets bashed in the NYTimes. They like bashing administrations, as does the Washington Post and other major newspapers. What news source is better? The Drudge Report? NewsMax?
While the NYTimes could do a better job, I find it distressing that some dismiss the hundreds of other articles they write that are well written, well researched, and award worthy.
So their many well-produced articles make up for those articles that have been faked? What would be the acceptable percentage of true articles should be allowed? Why have any true article at all?
I’m sure they could make space next to the Star and the National Inquirer at the checkout counter for the Times.
We need to watch all media publications (liberal and conservative) like a hawk. When they make a mistake, we call for their heads. It’s the only way to keep them honest.
When Sinclair puts out propaganda intended to change the outcome of the election, that’s bad. When other media organizations, including many popular news agencies, do the same in the other direction, it’s not bad. Is that the argument? I don’t buy it, especially in light of the flat-earth theory that most news outlets don’t lean leftward.
As Morgan said, past success in the face of current partisanship only goes so far. How many times does a dog have to piss on the rug before you put it outside?