If it was in the NY Times today, there'll probably be a two paragraph retraction some time this week:
Democratic convention delegates, for example, booed when a Scout patrol appeared on the podium in L.A. And we recently have seen a spate of press reports, most notably in the New York Times, cheerfully reporting that various institutions were now "withdrawing" support from the Scouts. The gay movement has launched an intolerant offensive to punish those who disagree.
In such a world, normal checks and balances go out the window. Thus last week the Times found itself publishing a five-paragraph correction of its page-one story on the Scouts and gays.
The Times "misstated" city restrictions in Chicago and San Francisco on Scouts' use of public facilities, erroneously reported them as having come in response to the Supreme Court's decision, admitted a San Jose elementary school district had not in fact restricted Scouts' access because of its policy on gays, said it was not "dozens" but only "about a dozen" United Way organizations that have stopped supporting the Scouts and, finally, that it had wrongly reported the Roman Catholic Church as forbidding the ordination of gays (all priests must take a vow of celibacy).
Here's a few more they didn't get to. Two companies named as thinking about cutting off funding for the Scouts or having done so have corrected the record. Chase Manhattan says its decision to suspend temporarily new funding commitments was "mischaracterized" in press reports, "leaving the impression that Chase had made a decision to discontinue funding the Boy Scouts." Chase will continue to fund Scout programs. Merrill Lynch says it too will continue to support the Scouts, because "we do not believe the role of our philanthropy is to reconcile all conflicting views."
opinionjournal.com
In any case read on, NY Times is subscribed by many people around the world..
You are such a fountain of information. |
