Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (1038)	3/30/2006 2:25:36 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Do you think the NYTimes is organic and alive? There are editorials and they can say whatever the hell they want. Same goes for op ed. Then there is straight news which is supposed to be objective and for the most part is. So who is this NYTimes person you are looking to tell the truth with this MSM fantasy of yours. Turn on Rush if you are looking for bull s**t.

To: KLP who wrote (1038)	3/30/2006 5:14:50 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

The [New York] Times has had years and countless prime examples to notice and observe its own reporting, and has made absolutely no effort to do so. I am left with no choice to conclude that they are not being inaccurate, but rather know exactly what they are doing -- and don't mind it in the least. Recalibrating the New York Times By Jay Tea on Media Wizbang We here at Wizbang! are a pretty laissez-faire group. For the most part, we all write what we want, when we want, utterly independent of each other. And rarely do we address each others' writings directly. I can recall one time Paul did publicly disagree with me, and in that case I reconsidered and decided he was right. It took a bit of time and a couple of false starts, but in the end I had to admit I was originally utterly talking out my ass, and I thank Paul for correcting me. In that spirit (and with just a hint of glee), I have to quibble with Paul in his defense of the New York Times last week. His basic argument seems to be an application of one of my favorite aphorisms -- "never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence" -- but I think that to apply it so broadly in this case is giving them too much credit, in the light of far more evidence. I'm no gun expert, but I'm going to use a firearms metaphor here. Suppose the New York Times was a rifle. If they were merely inaccurate, as some say to defend their numerous errors, then one would expect the target to be pretty evenly perforated. Bullet holes would be scattered all over the place. But that's not the case here. Take a look at some of the more egregious New York TImes "mistakes" of the past few years. The Katrina refugee story Paul cited. The coverage of Katrina itself. Their role in the Texas Air National Guard fake memos story. The discussion of Marines and body armor. Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, stealing documents from the National Archives. The "tons of missing explosives in Iraq" story. Their analysis of the 9/11 commission. And so on. And so on. There is a common thread between all these stories? In every single case, it's not just that the story was wrong. it was that in every single case, the wrong story slammed -- directly or indirectly -- the Bush administration. Going back to my gun analogy, imagine that target again. Instead of the holes being scattered all over the target, they are all clustered six to eight inches to the left of the center. That's not an inaccurate gun, it's an improperly aligned gun. All it takes to "fix" it is a little recalibrating. The Times has long had the reputation of being THE standard of journalism. They are a "master marksman," in my metaphor. They've been shooting for a long time. So why haven't they noticed their mistakes all seem to have this common thread? If I saw an expert shooter who blew away target after target, each time missing the center and instead clustering his shots off to one side, I'd have no choice to conclude that it was a deliberate choice: for whatever reason, the shooter was deliberately missing the bullseye and arbitrarily picking another part of the target. Because a good shooter would correct or compensate for a misaligned gun, not just keep plugging away. The Times has had years and countless prime examples to notice and observe its own reporting, and has made absolutely no effort to do so. I am left with no choice to conclude that they are not being inaccurate, but rather know exactly what they are doing -- and don't mind it in the least. It's not a happy conclusion to reach, but I really don't see any other explanations. We've long past the limits of the "never ascribe to malice" aphorism. We reached the "once can be an accident, twice a coincidence, but three times is a trend" point ages ago. (Update: DUH. I originally considered this piece last week, but decided against it. It was Kim's piece of last night that made me reconsider.) feeds.wizbangblog.com wizbangblog.com wizbangblog.com wizbangblog.com wizbangblog.com wizbangblog.com wizbangblog.com

To: KLP who wrote (1038)	3/30/2006 5:22:05 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Power Line has ripped the NYT a new one with their blatant distortions on the hearings with the FISA Judges & the NSA warrantless wiretaps. It seems that the Judges say Bush has certain inherent powers to engage in them, but the NYT claimed otherwise. The NYT just can't seem to get past their far left bias, even if they harm national security in the process. Someone's Misreporting This Story Message 22307251 Verdict: The New York Times Blew the Story Message 22309871 The verdict, take 2 Message 22309948